Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that long supplementary questions limit the number of questions that I can call.

Oral Answers to Questions — Scotland

Hamilton Teachers Training College

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest situation with regard to the closure of Hamilton teachers training college.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend has not departed from his decision that Hamilton college of education is to be closed.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Hamilton teacher training college was constructed it was intended to serve a deprived area with the worst teacher record in the country? Will he concede that the in-service training at the college is second to none? Will he salve his conscience by voting as he did in the Scottish Grand Committee when the Labour Government were in power, namely, in favour of the retention of all the colleges? If he is not prepared to do that, will he do the honourable thing and resign?

Mr. Fletcher: The plan to close the Hamilton college is no criticism of the work done by the staff of the college. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that in 1973 there were peak numbers of children in our primary schools. In anticipation of that, in the early 1960s the Government built several new colleges in Scotland, including that at Hamilton. The position on the number of children has been reversed, and for that reason the Government have to take action.

Mr. John MacKay: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Hamilton college is designed for about 750 student teachers and that at present it has only about 300? Can he say whether the figure of 300 would decline or rise if the college were kept open?

Mr. Fletcher: The numbers quoted by my hon. Friend are approximately correct. There is no doubt that there would be a further reduction in the number of student teachers required from Hamilton and other colleges.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Why are the colleges to be closed before the committee chaired by Sir Norman Graham to investigate the position has reported?

Mr. Fletcher: The committee on tertiary education is investigating the whole area of tertiary education. However, the statistics on pupil population were so clear that my right hon. Friend was obliged to take a decision now.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the work of the Hamilton college is of considerable importance in Renfrewshire and that, therefore, the proposal to close it is a matter of considerable concern to my constituents? Is he satisfied with all the figures on relative costs and so on that have been issued by the Scottish Education Department?

Mr. Fletcher: I assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of the valuable work that has been done by the Hamilton college in training technical teachers and in in-service training. I assure him also that savings have to be made because of the reduction in the school population. Unfortunately, Hamilton college is one of those that have to be closed.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his personal integrity and that of the Secretary of State have been seriously damaged by their attitude to the colleges of education? Does he remember that the Secretary of State even joined a picket line outside New St. Andrew's House in an effort to keep the 10 colleges in being? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has produced, no economic argument, because no figures have been produced and no education argument? Even at this late stage, may I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to abandon his silly proposal and to withdraw the document, or at least to postpone a decision for another 18 months, to give the committee on tertiary education time to report and to give us an opportunity to consider the whole subject?

Mr. Fletcher: On this subject, and on the question of integrity, the hon. Gentleman should be the last person to comment, bearing in mind that in 1977 he campaigned against the closure of Callendar Park but remained a member of the Government who were intent on closing it. The point is that the closure of colleges in 1977 might have been premature. Present statistics make it abundantly clear that college closures are unavoidable.

Teacher Education

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the dismantling of the 10-college system of teacher education will have on the provision of in-service training in central Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend intends that in-service training will be maintained at its present level.

Mr. O'Neill: The House will be interested to know that this scheme is to be carried through. Many hon. Members feel that it is impossible for in-service training to be kept going at the present level when there are no regional facilities available such as would be provided by Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges. What provision will the Minister make for the regional dimension of in-service training? If he does not understand what that means, it is simply—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even I understand that.

Mr. Fletcher: The decision on which colleges should be closed was difficult. My right hon. Friend took that


decision so that there would be the best possible distribution of colleges throughout Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must know, that, even with 10 colleges, there are many parts of Scotland today that carry out in-service training and yet are many miles from a teacher training college.

Mr. Lang: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is some strength in the geographical argument of not having the colleges too concentrated? Can he indicate the consequence of the closure of Hamilton and its effect on in-service training?

Mr. Fletcher: The decision to close Hamilton, which is about 20 miles from Glasgow, was a difficult one. Nevertheless, it can obtain services from Jordanhill. Callendar Park can obtain services from Jordanhill and also from Moray House. As in-service training is best carried out in schools themselves and not in teacher training colleges, there is no need for in-service training to be reduced in any way.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that after the last threat to close Callendar Park that college expanded beyond mere teacher training? It is a major institution for the region as a whole. I am not a Member from that region, but it is is obvious that this is a major institution serving the region and should be retained.

Mr. Fletcher: I know that there was some extension of the work done outside teacher training in all the colleges, but the primary purpose of the colleges is for pre-service training and they have to be considered as such.

Mr. Pollock: If the Government accept the value of in-service training, will my hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the present method of funding that in-service provision?

Mr. Fletcher: The funding of in-service training is through the rate support grant. Thereafter, the regional authorities are left to give it whatever priority they choose. If my hon. Friend has any complaint about the extent of in-service training in his part of Scotland, I can only advise him to take up the matter with Grampian region.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister recall that last February he gave a firm commitment to three Members of Parliament, including myself, and to representatives of Callendar Park that he would issue a consultative document before he came to any decision about the proposed change in the structure of the college of education system in Scotland, and that firm commitment was followed by a written commitment? Did the Minister forget to publish the consultative document in August, or was he simply telling lies to us in February?

Mr. Fletcher: I said in February of this year that we would produce a consultative document, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am not trying to avoid that commitment. It was, however, obvious to my right hon. Friend and myself during the discussions that took place that there could be agreement in principle that colleges should be closed but that there could never be agreement about which colleges should be closed. We had to take that unpopular decision ourselves.

Energy Costs

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of high energy costs upon industry and employment in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Scottish industries are affected by rising world energy prices and we are giving urgent consideration to the report on comparative international energy prices submitted to us recently by the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that the country will be glad to hear the last part of that answer? Is he further aware that the textile industry, the paper-making industry and even the electronics industry in Scotland suffer from the fact that their competitors have the benefit of cheap energy supplied by their Governments? Will he treat this matter as urgent? Will he press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the heavy fuel oil tax, which could be an immediate step to reduce the cost of energy to industry?

Mr. Younger: The Government, too, are concerned about the problems that these industries face. We are concerned to look into the survey submitted to us by the CBI. We are paying attention particularly to the methods by which one compares energy prices in different countries. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing the best we can to assess these factors.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the State monopolies that are mainly involved in this exercise are taking steps to improve their productivity and to take tough decisions of the kind that their customers face in the real competitive world?

Mr. Younger: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The electricity and other energy-using industries in the State sector are doing everything they can to economise on costs. They are taking new steps, following the Government's initiative, to communicate with their customers on the best means of saving on energy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware of the loss of 350 jobs at Culter paper mills outside Aberdeen, which ends paper making in that area after more than 300 years? Is he aware that the paper industry is concerned about high energy costs? Will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government and reduce the ridiculous diktat that fuel prices must rise by 10 per cent. more than inflation?

Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the paper-making industry. He may be glad to know that I am arranging to meet representatives of that industry as soon as possible to hear the problems in more detail. We shall look at the matter carefully.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the Secretary of State feel that it is both anomalous and unfair that Scotland, as a major oil producer and exporter, should suffer these disadvantages of high energy costs? Is it not appropriate that he should press the point with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that an oil fund is set up in Scotland, which would enable aid to be given to our industries in difficulty?

Mr. Younger: If Scotland wishes to make the best use of the unique advantage of North Sea oil, it would be well advised not to depart from world energy prices in using it. Otherwise, it would be used far too quickly. Scotland gets overwhelmingly the greatest benefit from oil development. The employment picture in the North-East of Scotland should have convinced even the hon. Gentleman of that.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the problems of the fishing and the horticulture industries, whose energy costs are a high proportion of their total costs?

Mr. Younger: Yes. The Government have been putting pressure on the Commission in regard to the horticulture industry, and it is taking action to ensure, for instance, that Dutch growers have the same prices as other Dutch industries, which in the past they have not had.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As the decision of the Government to make the Gas Corporation increase its prices against its wishes in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement has proved an abysmal failure, would it not be prudent for the Secretary of State to advise his Cabinet colleagues to withdraw the increase and thereby help the gas consumers at both industrial and domestic levels?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are taking steps to enable the price of new firm gas contracts to be held down. There is no future in pretending that gas costs less than it really does. The hon. Gentleman would do a grave disservice to our future security of gas supplies if he were to succeed in doing any such thing.

Local Authorities (Manning Levels)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to issue guidelines on manning level reductions to local authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The reductions in expenditure by local authorities which we propose must mean reductions in staffing as it accounts for 70 per cent. of spending. This has been made clear to local authorities on many occasions since we came into office, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to issue guidelines on staffing reductions in individual authorities.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider asking local authorities to look carefully at revenue expenditure, and perhaps draw their attention to the private sector—the farming industry in my constituency has had over 160 redundancies this year—as an example that they should follow? The authorities should perhaps look at revenue expenditure and at and large professional departments, such as architects and quantity surveyors, whose work could easily be contracted out.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. We have sought to impress upon local authorities that their actual increase in manpower over the last year is unacceptable in national economic circumstances. If the Scottish Office can make a substantial reduction in its manpower without affecting the quality of service to the public, local authorities can do the same.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that since local housing authorities have been forced, against

their will in the majority of cases, to sell council houses, this must mean an increased legal staff to handle those applications? Will he give an undertaking that where a local authority refuses to take on this staff to conform with the Government policy of restricting manpower he will agree to its refusal to do so?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is not for the Government to approve or disapprove of an individual employment decision by a local authority. What we are concerned with is the overall total. The Government occasionally have to take on staff for new purposes, but overall we are reducing our manpower, in the public interest. Local authorities have failed to do so.

Local Authority Houses

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which housing authorities have asked for consent to demolish housing stock since May 1975 to date; how many houses were covered by such applications; how many were refused; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: As the answer is lengthy, I shall, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report. However, I can say that since May 1975 30 local authorities have sought consent to demolish approximately 5,000 houses. Consent to demolish 656 houses has been refused, and proposals to demolish about a further 1,000 houses are currently being considered by my Department.

Mr. Brown: The bulk of the houses are in Glasgow, including my constituency. In view of the Government's declared intention to cut back on housing expenditure over the next few years, will the Minister ensure that adequate resources are available to make the necessary decisions that follow from permission to demolish in the first place?

Mr. Rifkind: It is essentially Glasgow district council that has made the applications. It clearly believes that it will be able to ensure a better use of its available resources if the demolition of particular houses is approved. We shall apply the normal criteria that successive Governments have applied and give Glasgow district council a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Henderson: How much of the demolition has been of substandard houses, in correcting blunders made by Labour local authorities?

Mr. Rifkind: The criteria under which demolition is normally required are excessive damage caused by vandalism or original faults in the construction, which make it more sensible to demolish the house than to improve it.

Following is the information:

Details of Applications from Local Authorities to Demolish Houses


District Council
Numbers Agreed
Numbers Refused



(where known)


Argyll and Bute
8



Bearsden and Milngavie
16



Clackmannan
258



Clydebank
8
69


Clydesdale (formerly Lanark)
68
26


Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
3



Cumock and Doon Valley
44



Cunninghame
142



Dumbarton
70

Council House Sales

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the response by local authorities to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Rifkind: Applications by council tenants to buy their homes under the Act are being processed in almost all areas. A few authorities have, however, sought means of discouraging and obstructing their tenants in the free exercise of their lawful rights, and my right hon. Friend takes an extremely grave view of the threats by members of one authority that they may attempt to deny their tenants their rights by failing to carry out the duties which Parliament has placed upon them.

Mr. MacKay: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that members of NALGO are dragging their heels on the sale of council houses? If he receives such evidence, will he remind them that they exist to serve the public, not to decide what the public should or should not do, and that many of their colleagues in local government are first in the queue to buy their local authority houses?

Mr. Rifkind: It is true that NALGO, particularly in Glasgow and perhaps in one other authority area, has refused to help process the applications. It is a matter for Glasgow district council, which has decided to implement the Act, to ensure that its statutory obligations are carried out. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unacceptable and deplorable if members of a union in a particular area sought to deny the rights which Parliament has provided and which many of the union's members wish to exercise.

Mr. Grimond: What help can the Government give to island authorities that are housing authorities when teachers in the outer islands quite properly ask to buy their houses, especially in view of the restrictions on new house building, which are putting island authorities in great difficulty?

Mr. Rifkind: The position of the island authorities, about which the right hon. Gentleman has written to me, is clear. Where a teacher occupies a house under the terms of his or her contract, clearly the house would not be required to be sold by the authority to the teacher. However, if the teacher is simply occupying a house in the same way as any other tenant or employee of the authority, he or she must be entitled to the same rights under the Act as any other person occupying an island house.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that it shows 300 how out of touch and ideologically isolated so many 189 Labour councillors are in desperately trying to stop the sale of council houses when it is clear that the majority of people in council tenancies want to live in their own homes? As proof, can my hon. Friend tell the House how many applications have been received by Labour-controlled councils?

Mr. Rifkind: I can tell the House that, for example, in Aberdeen, which my hon. Friend helps to represent, 900 completed application forms have already been returned to the local authority. In the few weeks since the Act received Royal Assent, more than 3,000 application forms have been returned to Labour-controlled local authorities.

Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern throughout Scotland about the effect of compulsory sales on the housing stock of local authorities, especially at a time when the Government's expenditure cuts mean that there will be virtually no new council house building and virtually no modernisation of old council houses, leading to a negative growth in council house stock?

Mr. Rifkind: The "widespread concern" is restricted to members of the Labour Party, who have seen one of their ideological fixations destroyed by the Act. The tenants have demonstrated in the most obvious way possible their support for the legislation, and in a way that the Government are delighted to have seen.

Firemen (Pay)

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will guarantee that the agreement made by the last Government on firemen's pay will be honoured in the present pay negotiations.

Mr. Younger: The Government have indicated the limit on their contribution through rate support grant for local authority pay increases generally in the coming year. It is for the national joint council to decide on firemen's pay, and I understand that it will meet again tomorrow.

Mr. Hogg: That is an unacceptable reply. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made it clear in the past that they supported the existing agreement for firemen, and they should now honour their word.

Mr. Younger: All that we have done is to make clear to local authorities how much money the country can afford to allow for local authority pay increases generally. It is our duty to make that clear, and we should have been very remiss if we had not done so.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have a situation of free collective bargaining in which the amount of money available in the private or


public sector determines that which is available for pay? It is up to the negotiating body to determine how that pay is to be allocated.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. It is surely of the greatest importance that everyone in the country should realise as quickly as possible that there is not a bottomless pit of money that can be used for any purpose. It is essential to know what the country can afford when negotiating pay agreements in the public sector.

Mr. Harry Ewing: How can the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Bo with such impertinence and insult the firemen in the way that he has done today? Is he not aware that his right hon Friend who is now Home Secretary gave an unqualifed guarantee to the firemen before the election that a new Conservative Government would honour the commitment that was given? In view of the conversation that is going on, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does not take advice from the Under-Secretary on anything. Is the Secretary of State not aware of the commitment given by the Home Secretary to the firemen? This whole Question Time is an examination of one pre-election promise betrayal after another.

Mr. Younger: As usual, the hon. Gentleman tries rather too hard and spoils his case. It is true that my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking similar to that which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but that does not exonerate me from my responsibility to tell the country now what it can afford to pay for the support of local authority pay.

Kidney Donors

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any conveniently available statistics of kidney donation in Scotland since the broadcast of the BBC "Panorama" programme on 13 October purporting to cast doubt on the criteria of death applied by British doctors when deciding whether to ask relatives for use of kidneys from a potential donor.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): In the five weeks since the programme was shown, there have been eight kidney transplant operations in Scotland compared with six operations in the corresponding period last year; but it is too soon to predict the long-term effect of the programme, which falsely implied that some American patients who recovered at the eleventh hour would have been pronounced dead under the British code of practice. This was a grievously wrong and damaging misrepresentation.

Mr. Dalyell: Delicate though the relations between any Government and the BBC must be, would it not be proper to make representations about Mr. David Dimbleby's claim that doctors should not have the opportunity to present their case on the highly emotive and technical question of brain death, as they wish, because, according to Dimbleby, it would be a party political broadcast? Is not that outrageous?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept almost everything that the hon. Gentleman says. These are important issues. A leader in today's issue of The Times says:
no serious critic has contended that it was defensible for the programme to present with dramatic prominence, in the context of the British code for recognizing brain death, four patients who had mistakenly been identified as dead in the United States,

without making it clear that they could never have been so identified under the British code. It was nothing less than sharp practice to cut an interview with a British doctor in such a way that he seemed to be commenting (most lamely) on these cases when in fact he did not know that they would be mentioned".
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It behoves us all to bring the maximum pressure to bear on the BBC and to work with the medical profession to try to right this grievous wrong. It is most unfortunate that the programme that should have been transmitted earlier this week did not take place. We must exert pressure to have that remedied.

Mr. McQuarrie: The House will welcome the programme last night in which members of the BMA appeared and in which it was clearly shown that there was no risk to donors in offering kidneys. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will encourage the restoration of confidence in people's being kidney donors. I hope that those who tore up their cards because of that dreadful programme will put new cards in their pockets in case they can be of use to some poor person who requires a new kidney.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I believe that this is a matter of the utmost importance. May I make another brief quotation? I think that this is important—[Hon. Members: "No."] It is important. Dr. Benjamin Bradley, who is the director of the United Kingdom transplant centre in Bristol, is reported as saying:
We think there have been about 100 operations lost as a result of the programme.
Perhaps I might remind right hon. and hon. Members of what that means. It means already that about 100 people have to make a journey three times a week to hospital to a renal dialysis machine and be on that machine for between five and eight hours. They are being denied a full life because of this programme.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Although I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for his indignant protest, is it not an indication of the impotence of this House in a matter of life and death such as this that no pressure appears capable of being brought on the BBC to put the record straight in this connection? Is it not time that in cases such as this, where, as I said previously, it is a matter of life and death, some action should be taken to convince the BBC that something must be done about implications of this kind, which are wrong?

Mr. Fairgrieve: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the press since this disgraceful programme was transmitted, and he must be grateful to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the matter. On this issue, the maximum pressure is coming from everyone in the country, whatever his political allegiance. I hope that it is successful and that the BBC' will put right this disgraceful wrong.

Unemployment

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which invitations to attend meetings to discuss unemployment in Scotland or in Ayrshire he has been able to accept.

Mr. Younger: I have accepted numerous such invitations throughout Scotland, including Ayrshire.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that, with unemployment in Scotland now running at 11·3


per cent., in Ayr at 12 per cent. and in Cumnock at 15½ per cent., everyone in Scotland thinks that his attitude is one of total complacency? It is no good his going round Scotland smiling like a Cheshire cat. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman took some action in the Cabinet to change the policies that are causing the unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I begin to wonder whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has given any thought to what the causes are. They are the long-term weakening of competitiveness in our industry, resulting from the policies advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The whole basis of the strategy which the Government are following is to make our industry more competitive so that it can take on more people again.

Mr. Ancram: I agree that the present unemployment level in Scotland is unacceptable in the long term, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the unemployment level relative between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is now moving in Scotland's favour shows that Scotland is riding out the recession rather better than its neighbours, and that this is a sign of hope for the future?

Mr. Younger: I agree that unemployment is of major concern to us, whatever its level. My hon. Friend is right when he says that it appears that Scotland-is riding out this difficult time rather better than the rest of Britain, and I am very glad about that.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Secretary of State aware that we do not need any more meetings to discuss unemployment in Ayrshire? We need only to go home and see every factory round about us closing down to appreciate the gravity of the position. We need action by the Secretary of State. How can the right hon. Gentleman remain in the Cabinet and as the Member of Parliament for Ayr when he sees the unemployment and the closure of factories around him? How can he justify an 18·2 per cent. rate of unemployment in my area—a so-called growth area in Ayrshire—and remain Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I remain there with the determination to do something about it. That is the nature of my responsibility. The first thing for me to do, in order to do something about it, is to understand why it has happened. It has happened because policies such as those advocated by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) have weakened British industry for years. That is what we have to put right.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Dick Stewart, leader of the Strathclyde regional council, on swiftly and totally rejecting the outrageous suggestion by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that Strathclyde region should give a massive £1 million handout for jobs at Stonefield to be financed by a rate surcharge, which would threaten jobs everywhere else in Strathclyde? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that suggestion was both the height of impudence and the economics of the madhouse?

Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lambie: Give him a job.

Mr. Younger: If I had to choose between the views of Councillor Dick Stewart and those of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I think I know which I should choose.

Mr. Foulkes: I thank the right hon. Gentleman!

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is it not correct that, when the Secretary of State accepted office, he said that his first priority as Secretary of State would be to maintain employment in Scotland? Since then, has not the fall guy been his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for these matters? What proposals has the Secretary of State in mind to try to change the economic picture before factory after factory closes and there is nothing left to revive in Scotland, even if his Government's policies prove successful, which is doubtful?

Mr. Younger: It is the top priority in what I have to tackle. I was not chosen to do this job to run away from it, nor would I be thanked for doing so. My job is to do my best to put matters right. The way to do that is to get British industry competitive once more so that we do not have our goods undercut by foreigners who are able to do it because they have lower rates of inflation than we have.

Mr. Millan: When will the Secretary of State accept personal responsibility for the present disgraceful unemployment figures in Scotland instead of trying to blame everyone else? Is he not aware of the widespread despair and despondency in Scottish industry, much of which is already on its knees? Why are the Government so intent on deliberately destroying jobs and, at the same time, spending thousands of millions of pounds on unemployment benefit? Is not this economic and financial madness?

Mr. Younger: I am very surprised to be lectured by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on this matter, as he sat around in the Scottish Office while unemployment doubled during his time there. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would understand, if no one else did, the main reason why unemployment was going up. As an accountant, he ought to understand that if we go on bleeding the private sector with excessive public spending more businesses will go wrong, and not fewer.

Council House Sales

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inquiries from council tenants have been received by his Department about the purchase of council houses under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

Mr. Rifkind: At the end of last week there had been more than 3,000 inquiries direct from tenants to the Scottish Office. In addition, my Department has received requests for a further 35,000 information leaflets for issue to tenants by local authorities and other bodies, despite the fact that 162,500 leaflets were distributed to all housing authorities only eight weeks ago.

Mr. Ancram: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a genuine demand from council tenants for the right to own their houses? Does he not agree also that the insidious attempts being made by certain Labour councils to prevent them from doing so resemble nothing so much as the last desperate attempt of ancient feudal landlords to keep control over their vassals?

Mr. Rifkind: I listen to what my hon. Friend says on these subjects with careful thought. Let me make it clear, however, that the vast majority of Labour authorities should be congratulated on implementing their statutory obligations under the Act, because they are responding to the wishes of their tenants. Unfortunately, a tiny fraction are still trying to prevent these rights from being exercised, but I have not the slightest doubt that their attempts will come to a miserable end in the very near future.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that it would be better if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) were to stick to such subjects as feudal oppression, about which he knows, and not pontificate on public opinion in Scotland? Does the Minister really believe that there is widespread support for the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act among council house tenants in Scotland? If he suffers that delusion, will he accept an invitation to come to a meeting of residents' associations in the Drumchapel housing scheme, which I think I could arrange, where he will discover what people who live in council houses think of this mean and petty legislation?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) does not believe that tenants want to buy, he should not object to giving them the right to do so, because if he is right they will not exercise it. It is evident already that the Government's forecast of response among council tenants will be about 50 per cent. of the actual sales in the first year.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the figures that his Department is collecting of inquiries about sales of council houses must remain distorted while one of the four major cities in Scotland refuses to give council tenants the right to buy, which this House has given them? When distributing leaflets and information about Dundee district council, will my hon. Friend tell the tenants that they have a statutory right and that the refusal by their district council to grant that right will eventually cost them and the ratepayers a considerable sum of money?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. In the meantime, there is nothing to stop individual tenants in Dundee from sending in their applications by recorded delivery. If Dundee district council refuses to process them, apart from any action that my right hon. Friend might have to take if the council publicly defies an Act of Parliament, there is nothing to stop tenants from having their applications processed through the Lands Tribunals.

Mr. George Robertson: Since the Government continue to provide us with the figures relating to council house sales inquiries, will they consider spending some of their propaganda budget on telling council house tenants about the other side of the coin, namely, the additional cost that will be attracted to the council house buyer in mortgages, repairs and insurance? Will he also tell them about the difficulties of resale? If both sides of the coin are balanced, will not the Minister have a fairer indication of the enthusiasm with which his policy is being greeted by the people of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I notice that those factors have not prevented the vast majority of Labour Members from seeking to become home owners. I do not see why council tenants should respond differently.

Mr. Allan Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the sale of council houses to sitting tenants under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Rifkind: In almost all areas applications under the right-to-buy provisions of the Act are, as far as I am aware, being progressed expeditiously, A significant number of sales are already taking place under the voluntary sales provisions of the Act, as a result of applications lodged before the Act came into effect, and I hope that sales at present being processed will begin to be completed early in the New Year.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the forecast that members of the Tribune group will shortly take over the Scottish Opposition Front Bench? If and when that happy event occurs, does my hon. Friend believe that he will be successful in provoking the new Scottish Opposition Front Bench into saying precisely how many Scottish families will be deprived of the right to buy their homes under a future Labour Government?

Mr. Rifkind: The more that the Opposition promote that policy, the further away is the date that on which a Labour Government will take over. In any event, the vast majority of members of the Tribune group are home owners. I am sure that they will do nothing to prevent council house tenants from claiming their rights.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister seems to be more successful as a cut-price estate agent than as a Minister. Does the leaflet distributed by the Scottish Office on the sale of council houses explain that which is explained in the leaflet issued by East Lothian district council, namely, that people who purchase their council houses will be worse off?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be the last person to oppose home ownership. However, since he has raised the question I shall take the opportunity to point out that the leaflet published and distributed by the East Lothian district council contains a large number of utterly misleading, incorrect and false suggestions about the meaning of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and its implications for tenants who purchase their homes. I am delighted that that publication seems to have had no effect whatsoever on the anxiety of tenants in East Lothian to purchase their homes.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon Friend aware that certain local authorities in Scotland are deliberately delaying the processing of council house sales in order to collect additional rent? Will that additional rent be repaid to the purchaser when the transaction is completed?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not aware of processing being delayed for that reason. Specific time scales are laid down under the Act to ensure that there is no excessive delay by any local authority in processing applications.

Mr. Millan: Does the Minister agree that if a local authority is publishing misleading information it can come nowhere near the deliberate cheating by the Government on the question of elderly persons' housing?

Mr. Rifkind: We debated these matters on a previous occasion. With the record of his Administration behind him, the right hon. Gentleman should be wary of accusing anybody of misrepresenting any facts or figures.

Nursery Education

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an announcement on the Government's attitude towards nursery education in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: It is for education authorities to decide, in the light of their needs and resources, on the level of provision of nursery education for the area.

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the best form of education for pre-primary school children is that of a voluntary nature, preferably one that involves the mothers and is organised by a body such as the Scottish Pre-School Playgroups Association? Does he agree also that that is preferable to the more costly and formal education provided by local authorities? Will he encourage local authorities to support such bodies?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The voluntary part-time play groups do a valuable job. The figures suggest that more Scottish children attend such voluntary groups than nursery schools.

Mr. Douglas: The Under-Secretary of State referred to voluntary bodies. Will he take cognisance of the plight of the Scottish Council for Spastics? Is he aware that under his Administration it has had to sell its investment to pay the penal amount of VAT levied on it and other similar organisations?

Mr. Fletcher: That matter does not come within the scope of the question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear from him.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: The fishing industry is facing formidable problems as a result of rising costs and the decline of many important fish stocks. This underlines the need for a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy, and the Government are working urgently to this end.

Mr. Sproat: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern amongst fishermen about the use of the 35 per cent. figure, which is the amount that they are supposed to get out of EEC waters? Does he accept that that is a somewhat phoney figure since it is not on the same basis as that for which the fishermen originally asked, which involved 45 or 65 per cent. of the fish that we contribute to EEC waters? Does he accept that the current EEC offer is worth only 26 per cent. on the normal basis of calculation? Will he continue his robust fight to increase that percentage?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the figures that my hon. Friend has spelt out. They formed a large part of the discussions that my right hon. Friend and I had with our Community colleagues last week. We shall be examining the figures. We made it clear to the Commission that we considered them unsatisfactory. We shall do our best to achieve a deal which the fishing industry can accept.

Mr. Grimond: When does the Secretary of State expect discussions in Brussels to come to an end and a decision to be taken?

Mr. Younger: We are all working towards a 31 December deadline for an agreement. There is modest hope that the current rate of progress will enable us to achieve that. It certainly is our aim.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still Government policy to adhere to the four points mentioned by the Prime Minister before the general election in relation to exclusive and preference zones?

Mr. Younger: There is no change in our basic negotiating position. We are still trying to achieve a full settlement that is acceptable to the industry, including an exclusive zone and preference in a zone beyond the exclusive zone.

Mr. Myles: If it is possible to reopen the herring fisheries next year, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure a 15 per cent. tariff on third country imports, in order to keep the market stable?

Mr. Younger: We shall certainly press that upon our colleagues. We have made it clear in negotiations that if there is to be an agreement on quotas firm arrangements must be made for when herring can be caught safely once again.

Mr. Millan: Will the Secretary of State clarify the Government's position in the negotiations? Will he confirm that he and the Government will not accept any common fisheries policy unless there is a 12-mile exclusive limit and dominant preference within the 12 to 50-mile zone outside that?

Mr. Younger: That is a general description of our objectives. There is no change in our position. We are in the middle of negotiations and I do not wish to make any statements here that will make them more difficult.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that if the CFP is not agreed by 31 December this year we shall take the necessary unilateral action to safguard the interests of our fishermen?

Mr. Younger: We have always made it clear that the interests of our fishing industry must come first. I hope that that eventuality will not arise, but if it does we shall have to consider seriously what we can do to protect our industry.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread fear in the fishing industry in Scotland that during the course of the year the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will sell out our vital interests? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish fishing industry is relying on him to prevent that? We welcome the precise incorporation in the Government's motion tonight of the wording of the Opposition amendment on the share-out of fish stocks that we debated last August. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clearcut undertaking, however, that the Government will stand by not just the 12-mile exclusive limit, but a dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile band?

Mr. Younger: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there is concern throughout the industry in Scotland. I do not accept, however, that that concern is that there is a danger of my right hon. Friend or myself selling out the industry's vital interests. We are determined to secure


an agreement that the industry can support, and we are keeping in the closest touch with it to ensure that it is fully apprised of the progress of the negotiations.

Open Channel Radio

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will consider advising police forces in Scotland on a general policy regarding action concerning persons alleged to be illegally broadcasting on open channel radios.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I do not think that there is any necessity to advise police forces on a general policy regarding action concerning people who allegedly illegally broadcast. The police are well aware that the use of 27 MHz citizens band radios is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and offences are reported to the procurators fiscal from time to time when they are detected.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the wide variety of practices adopted throughout Scotland on prosecution on this matter, which causes great resentment among the fraternity who meet regularly on the topic? In view of the impending legalisation of citizens band radio, will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his announcement?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is a wide variety of practices in Scotland, but it must be understood that those who broadcast on that waveband interfere with ambulance and other essential services. That is the reason for prosecution. A Green Paper is being considered, and representations upon it must be in by November. The impartiality of prosecution is in no way prejudiced between one part of Scotland and another.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many legal radio operators suffer considerable interference from the Kirk o' Shotts transmitter, with foul language and music being transmitted with the sole aim of perpetrating airways vandalism? Will my hon. and learned Friend advise the police to consider whether there is any way in which this behaviour can be stopped? Is he aware that those who are responsible for it are not those who would seek to use citizens band radio?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I deprecate foul language in any circumstances—

Mr. Lambie: Remember the picket.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I did not know that the word "picket" was foul language, but if it is I include it. If my hon. Friend is aware of specific breaches of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, I hope that he will report them to the police so that the procurator fiscal can take action.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Solicitor-General aware that this problem will disappear if the Government introduce legislation to legalise the use of citizens band radio? Will he confirm that, after receiving all the representations on the Green Paper, the Government intend to introduce such legislation in this Session of Parliament?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I cannot give that assurance The document is directed at genuine consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his

position clear. In the meantime, I hope that people will not take pirate radio into their own hands and upset those who broadcast legally.

Travelling People

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions of travelling people have been referred to his office by the Perth police in the period August, September and October 1980.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In the months of August, September and October 1980, the procurator fiscal at Perth has referred to the Crown Office six police reports involving 31 persons in connection with unauthorised encampments by travelling people. One of these reports—involving seven persons—related to encampments on the A9 slip road leading to the bridge over the River Almond just north of Perth; three reports—involving 13 persons—related to encampments at Morningside layby, Balbeggie, on the A94; one report—involving seven persons—related to encampments at Balhomie, Cargill, on the A93 Perth to Braemar Road; and one report—involving four persons—related to an encampment on the Muir of Alyth. These reports were considered personally by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who, having regard to all the circumstances, instructed that no proceedings should be taken.

Mr. Walker: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this problem is causing great concern in my constituency? May I have his assurance that these individuals, who now believe that they are above the law and are openly saying so, will be prosecuted as and when suitable alternative sites are shown to be available?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I understand that the local authority has now identified two sites which we hope will be approved shortly. Of course, anybody who commits a criminal offence will be prosecuted, but there is little purpose in moving a person from one site to another if he is merely to recommit the offence by being moved.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Solicitor-General at least congratulate his hon. Friend on getting his language right this time? Is he aware that the main problem arises from the persecution that emanates from the minds and temperament of people like the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker)? Is not the right solution for the Government to commit more funds to local authorities, so that they might provide proper sites for travelling folk?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I rind that comment strange, coming as it does from one of the principal paranoiacs in the House. The hon. Gentleman, however, will remember that the local authority gets a 100 per cent. grant. It is not possible, therefore, to provide more money. No doubt the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), like all good members of the Labour Party, is anxious to spend more than 100 per cent. of other people's money.

Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)? I am not aware of having used unparliamentary language at any time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise the point of order after Question Time.

Faculty of Advocates (Edinburgh)

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he intends next to meet the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans to meet the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in the meantime.

Mr. Fraser: That is a startling answer, in view of the great welcome that the Faculty of Advocates has given to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 which the Government have put on the statute book, especially in respect of the amendment made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on proscriptions and limitation? Can he tell the Faculty of Advocates and the House when that important measure will be getting a commencement order?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The order will be brought in to give effect to the measure on 22 December 1980, which happens to be my eldest daughter's birthday.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General make a report to the dean about the disgraceful behaviour of one of the members—a very unlearned member—of the faculty who recently made a disgraceful exhibition of himself in this House by making a mad rush and abrasively attacking a peaceful picket line of Members of Parliament who were trying to defend council house tenants against a savage attack by the "Mace bearer" of the Tory Party?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I certainly believe that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who knows more about madness and rushing than anybody, should continue elsewhere his career as a merchant of discourtesy.

Football Hooliganism

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases of violence or hooliganism

arising out of or associated with games of football have been reported to his Department or to procurators fiscal since August of this year.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is no separate record kept in fiscals' offices of offences which arise out of or are associated with games of football, and it is not possible within the short period available to give a totally accurate answer for the whole of Scotland. Approximately, there have been 500 cases reported since August as a result of incidents at or near football matches. The majority of these reports concern breaches of the peace and assaults.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the current procedure of charging in such offences? Has he, along with his noble and learned Friend, considered the possibility of using the charge of mobbing and rioting for the sort of behaviour that we saw at the end of the previous football season?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the whole House takes extremely seriously the appalling distress that arises from football hooliganism. I sincerely trust and believe that the new Criminal Justice Act will have a considerable effect upon the sale of alcohol at football grounds. We all want there to be reasonable behaviour at football matches.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I question the hon. and learned Gentleman on a much more constructive matter than that raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), namely, whether it is still the practice of his office that all these offences are prosecuted in the sheriff courts and none in the district courts.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On balance, yes, as we take a serious view of these matters. From time to time much more serious offences arise, which may be prosecuted in the High Court. People should understand that any misbehaviour associated with a public gathering such as a football match will be viewed in the most serious light.

Asian Community (Preston)

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the Asian community in Preston from National Front racists".
During this week National Front slogans, swastikas and obscenities have been daubed in bright blue paint on a number of homes, walls and cars owned by Asians. Two windows have been smashed and a giant National Front sign has been painted on the bonnet of an Asian woman's car. This followed the day when police formed a protective ring round National Front marchers in nearby Chorley and Bolton. In Bolton the cost of protection has been estimated at £50,000. One innocent bystander was heard to shout "You are not Christians". Immediately thereafter the marchers chanted "Jesus was a wog". We are told that £50,000 was spent to protect that.
In Preston, Blackburn, Bolton, Chorley and elsewhere, Asian women and children fear for their safety. An early debate would enable the Home Secretary to spell out his Department's intentions in regard to the rise of Fascist movements that is being experienced in many towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. The Lancashire Evening Post and the Bolton Evening News have done a service in drawing attention to the activities of these Fascist groups.
This is an urgent and important matter, and I am sure that you recognise it as such, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threat to the Asian community in Preston from National Front racists".
The entire House will have been disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman has told us this afternoon. He will be aware that, while I am deeply conscious of the importance of the issue that he has raised, my powers are limited to deciding whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night. The House has also instructed me to give no reasons for my decision.
I do not underestimate the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman has brought to the notice of the House when I say that I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER 1980

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
Mr. A. J. Beith

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 November]:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. van Straubenzee].

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — Unemployment

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
but humbly regret that the already shameful levels of unemployment will be raised even further as a result of the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24 November".
Yesterday the unemployment figures for November were published. They revealed that on 13 November the number of men and women and boys and girls in the dole queue totalled a devastating 2,162,874. When Labour left office, the number out of work—far too many by any reckoning—was 1,340,600. Therefore, during the 560 days since the Government came into office each day an average of 1,468 people have been added to the dole queue. That is the real dole queue and not the Saatchi and Saatchi dole queue. That is the unique achievement of the Secretary of State for Employment. That is his only achievement. Putting people out of work has become the record on which the right hon. Gentleman has to stand. It is not an achievement that belongs solely to him; it is the achievement as well of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose disastrous flounderings on Monday will inevitably add to the numbers out of work.
I was expecting the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be present in the Chamber this afternoon. It seems that when he made his statement on Monday he spoke in a way that was seriously misleading. He gave the impression that employers' national insurance contribution rates would not be raised. He said:
Having regard, however, to the financial pressures on industry and the way in which the employer's share has grown in recent years, employers' contribution rates—including the surcharge—will remain unchanged."—[Official Report, 24 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 316.]
It now appears that employers will have to face an increase of up to £386 million in the annual cost of their national insurance contributions. We have learnt this not because the Chancellor has decided to be straightforward enough to correct his misleading original statement and to apologise for it on the Floor of the House, where the misleading statement was made. Once again, the Government have resorted to their familiar device of a written answer to a planted question. In this instance it was

a written answer from the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has shown the courtesy to the House of being present in the Chamber this afternoon.
The Government's practice of making major announcements by written answer has become intolerable to the House. We have had many examples in the past few weeks, including the 6 per cent. public sector pay limit and the council house rent increases. We now have a huge tax increase on business and industry, which, among other things, cannot help affecting employment levels, made by what has become the Government's characteristic subterfuge.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has disappeared from the Front Bench. I listened to him today in a radio interview, when he admitted that the announcement should not have been made in the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it. It is not the Chief Secretary who has misled the House but the Chancellor. He could at least have shown the House the courtesy of being here. Had he done so, I would have asked him to apologise to the House for gravely misleading it. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here, I shall address my remark to the Prime Minister. When will she get a grip on her Government so that the House of Commons is not misused and misled, as it has been over the past few weeks?
The Secretary of State for Employment has the unenviable record of 2,162,864 unemployed. The number of people kept off the unemployment register by the measures that he announced will be far outweighed by those who will be added to it by the Chancellor's frantic meddling with the economy.
Over the whole miserable mess hovers St. Francis. We all remember the words presented to the nation as a benediction by the Prime Minister from the steps of No. 10 Downing Street on 4 May last year. She proclaimed, in the words of St. Francis:
Where there is despair may we bring hope.
We now know that those fine but misleading words were put into the Prime Minister's head by a third-rate playwright angling for a knighthood. However, even Sir Ronald Millar, let alone St. Francis, could not have imagined that within 18 months that messenger of hope would be cutting the pensions of the old in violation of a solemn pledge and reducing the benefits of the unemployed whom she herself has thrown out of work.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Varley: I give way with some trepidation to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Faulds: I have certain sensitivities on such matters. May I assure my right hon. Friend, as one who probably knows Sir Ronald Millar's work rather better than most of my colleagues, that he is not a third-rate dramatist? He is a sixth-rate dramatist.

Mr. Varley: I feared that I was about to receive a thunderbolt from my hon. Friend. However, I thank him for that intervention,
Just before last year's general election, the Secretary of State for Employment confided to a friendly journalist his plans for reducing unemployment. He said:
I don't want to raise false expectations but I'm confident that we can do better than what is happening at the moment.
The trusting interviewer was quite impressed and begged the Secretary of State for further details, with this additional question:


How would you work towards the reduction?
The confident reply was:
Well, we believe it has to come basically through a stimulation of the economy and a better climate for business and industry.
What a deception those brave words turned out to be! Hardly a business in the country has not suffered as a result of the Government's policies. Many firms have been thrown out of business and into bankruptcy. Practically every industrial and economic decision taken by the Government has been an attack on jobs and investment
Last month the Tory newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a devastating article written by Mr. Graham Turner. He interviewed the chairmen of three of our major companies—GKN, Courtaulds and John Brown. Mr. Christopher Hogg, of Courtaulds, lamented:
We are having an appalling time, it's almost unbelievably rough. Since I took over, not much more than a year ago, Courtaulds have lost 22,000 jobs and I don't know where it's going to end.
Mr. John Mayhew-Sanders, of John Brown, felt just as despondent. He said:
As I see it, companies like ours are going to find themselves with an appalling loss of business and major contraction if things go on the way they are.
Mr. Trevor Holdsworth, of GKN, felt that the situation was bleak. He said:
The precipice came early this year and everything went down at once. We are surrounded wih customers making losses. We have never seen anything like it before.
Mr. Hogg, of Courtaulds, summed up the position in these words:
The Government don't seem to have given any thought to the survival level of British industry.
It is no wonder that it is rumoured that at next year's Confederation of British Industry conference Sir Terence Beckett is planning to organise a mass distribution of badges stating "Don't blame me; I voted Labour."
When we debate the mounting toll of unemployment, the Secretary of State and other Ministers have taken to claiming that it is not a matter that they can put right and that the difficulties in the economy and unemployment are caused by the world recession. However, they cannot conceal the fact that the slump in Britain is more serious than in any comparable country. Throughout the developed world, Governments are facing recession, inflation, or both, but those conditions are no excuse for the disastrous policies of this Government—far from it. They strengthen the indictment against the Government.
If the world economy and the national economy were buoyant, the Government might at some stage have had some justification for pursuing an economic experiment that, even in the most favourable circumstances, was a high-risk gamble. However, to pursue such an experiment when the odds against it were so high, when we had so little to stake and when the Government were staking all that they had was irresponsible to the point of folly. It is not a time for political voodoo, accompanied by incantations from the works of Professor Milton Friedman. It is time for the Government to act to soften at home the hazardous conditions overseas. However, they are pursuing policies that make a bleak situation devastatingly worse.
Unemployment has now reached levels not seen in Britain since the 1930s. Practically every commentator predicts that the total could reach 3 million in 12 months. No doubt the Treasury and the Department of Employment have secret forecasts that they dare not reveal to the House.

The figure does not take into account those who are not registered as unemployed but who want and need work. The appalling misery and waste that unemployment imposes is an astronomical burden on society.
The cost of existing unemployment—not that which we shall have in the next few months, through the loss of production and services to the economy—amounts to a massive £10 billion. The cost to the Exchequer for additional expenditure on social security benefits and the loss of national insurance payments and tax revenue adds a further £6,000 million in a full year. On top of that there is £10 billion in lost production and services. That is the enormous bill that the nation has to pay to indulge in the Prime Minister's dogmatic obsessions.
There is also a cost to individuals and families. For a married man who has two children at school and who is thrown out of work, the cost to society can be as high as £6,000 a year. In addition, unemployment is sheer psychological misery for that man and his family. This Government of penny-pinching Gradgrinds cut that man's unemployment benefit last Monday by £2·80. Not content with that, on the same clay the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would cut it again next year by up to 50p.
Very soon we shall be getting to the stage, as was witnessed in the 1930s, when it will be possible to recognise the children of the long-term unemployed by their visible poverty compared with the children whose more fortunate fathers have been able to hang on to their jobs.
Last Friday the Secretary of State for Employment announced with a great flourish his employment measures to be funded by an extra £250 million. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the extension of the youth opportunities programme—a scheme that was started under the Labour Government. But the package as a whole fell far short of what is required. Of course, there is no substitute for sound economic measures to create permanent jobs, but the measures announced by the Secretary of State in present circumstances are nowhere near what is required to meet the situation.
The new community enterprise programme is woefully inadequate and will not assist the long-term unemployed, whose numbers will soon reach 500,000. That new scheme plans to provide only 25,000 places by next March. On the face of it, given the growing numbers of those who have been out of work for a year or more, it is a dismal scheme.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman forgets that under his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition youth unemployment was 50 per cent. higher than it is now. It was 165,000, and under his right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) it increased to well over 200.000.

Mr. Varley: I said that unemployment under the Labour Government was too high. The fact is that for every month in the 12 months prior to the general election unemployment fell. There were more people in work when the Labour Government left office than when they started. Under this Government, 800,000 people have been added to the unemployment register in record time. The measures announced by the Secretary of State fall short of what is required. Much more could have been done. I will give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes


James) on this point, if he wishes to intervene. Apparently he does not wish to do so. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Industry wants to intervene.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I was observing to my neighbour that the right hon. Gentleman had conveniently changed the subject. It is true that more people were in work when the Labour Government left office than when they came in, but there were nearly double as many unemployed when they left office as when they came in.

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman has been the prime architect in putting another 800,000 people on the unemployment register.

Mr. Frank Haynes: What does the Secretary of State know about poverty? He has not got a clue.

Mr. Varley: The Secretary of State for Employment could have done much more. We understand his difficulties in getting extra resources out of the Treasury, but it is acknowledged by those who are administering the community industry scheme, for example, that they could cope with more places than the additional places allowed for by the Secretary of State.
The job release scheme, which has already taken more than 100,000 off the register, could have been widened to allow older men and women to opt for early retirement.
I understand that when he addresses the House later, the Secretary of State will expand on the words in the Queen's Speech:
Proposals will be put before you for improving industrial training in the longer term and for supplying those skills which will be needed when industry moves out of the current recession.
My first reaction is that the climate for embarking on new training could not be worse. A whole generation of young people is being denied apprenticeships. Boys and girls with the aptitude for potential skills will never have the chance of having them developed. They are gone for ever. They will never get apprenticeships. The numbers of apprentices throughout the country have decreased by about 10 per cent. over the past 12 months. Hundreds of apprentices have been declared redundant this year. I have received—I suspect that other hon. Members have also received—pitiful letters from boys and their parents whose joy at having an apprenticeship has been shattered and snatched away from them.
I assure the Secretary of State for Employment that if the proposals envisaged in the Queen's Speech are constructive and require legislation we shall give them a speedy passage through the House. But any proposals that the right hon. Gentleman brings forward will have to be judged by the resources that are made available by the Government for training for industry.
On Friday the Secretary of State avoided telling us what he should have told us, because he certainly knew that, with his ready agreement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already taken steps to render that total package completely ineffective. The increases in taxation and the cuts in public expenditure outlined by the Chancellor on Monday have "at a stroke" taken away any credit that the Secretary of State may have claimed for himself.
Putting forward policies on one day to nullify policies put forward on the previous day has become the hallmark

of this very confused Government. First, they dismantle major components of regional policy by getting rid of assistance grants and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs all over the country. They tell us that they are doing that to make financial savings that are less than the cost to the community of the unemployment being caused by the savings. The Government set up ramshackle enterprise zones that are expensive in lost tax revenue but will be considered a howling success if, between them, they create 1,000 jobs a year.
The Government provoked a strike in the steel industry and forced it into virtual bankruptcy by the preposterous cash limits imposed to fiddle the public sector borrowing requirement. Then, to salvage the situation that he had created, the Secretary of State for Industry handed the British Steel Corporation a blank cheque, which, when cashed, was added to the public sector borrowing requirement.
Next, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came along and, to compensate the public sector borrowing requirement for the extra money provided for the British Steel Corporation, increased taxes and cut expenditure in a way that will increase unemployment and consequently increase the PSBR again. It is crazy economics, but in the Treasury, I suppose, it is known as prudent bookkeeping.
Let us consider the National Enterprise Board—a body that once had the chance of creating jobs and doing some of the work that the Government now claim they want to do. One of the legislative centre-pieces of the last Session of Parliament was an Industry Act, which reduced the borrowing limits of the NEB, together with further measures for the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. This week the Secretary of State responsible for that statute introduced a new Industry Bill, which will raise the borrowing limits of the NEB together with those of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. The NEB was stripped of most of its powers and all its effective board members were unceremoniously got rid of by the Secretary of State. The shell of the NEB is now to be used to promote the expansion of Inmos—a company whose formation under the Labour Government was greeted with howls of derision by the very Secretary of State who now uses it as an economic and political pawn, having campaigned in office on the principle of non-interference with industry.
Was it not ironic that in the censure debate in July the only plums that the Prime Minister could pull out were further public expenditure allowing the Inmos project at last to go ahead and the giving of further assistance to the Dunlop company?
Another Act that was solemnly passed in the last Session was intended to bring about the sale of shares in British Airways. Now, we are told that no shares will be sold for a long time, because the Government's policies have forced British Airways into financial difficulties that render it impractical to "privatise" the organisation.
The Prime Minister exhorts us to buy British. The Secretary of State for Industry promptly contradicts her publicly and acts on his own policy, against that of the Prime Minister, by this week introducing a Bill that infringes the monopoly of the publicly owned telecommunications industry, which is by far the country's largest industrial investor. This wanton piece of legislation—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has been told—will open the way to damaging imports, which will jeopardise jobs in Britain.
All these demented contradictions of Government policy—sometimes one Minister contradicting another and sometimes one Minister contradicting himself—are baffling enough, but the biggest contradiction of all is that no one on the Government Front Bench denies that the Government's policies during the past 18 months have devastated industry and massively increased unemployment. We are told that all this was in the sacred cause of reducing the PSBR, so bringing economic salvation to the country. However, this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted to the House that his policies had failed. On Monday he confessed that by his standards the PSBR was out of control. Therefore, all that misery and those additional 800,000 unemployed have been for nothing.
Now, the Chancellor has another magic formula. In order to bring the PSBR back under control, he has increased taxation and cut expenditure in a way that will increase unemployment even further. That will mean that the PSBR will spiral out of control again. Either the Chancellor will have to think of something else or, even more likely, we shall have to think of a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am told that all the clever money is on the Secretary of State for Trade, who will reply to the debate tonight, although I do not know that that will do the country much good.
The scenario for the coming Session of Parliament is an uneasy mixture of farce and tragedy. The farce stems from the Government's clumsy and frantic efforts to put right their own unnecessary mistakes; the tragedy comes from the human misery caused by even higher unemployment. There are 2,162.874 reasons why our amendment should be carried tonight, but the Government will use their majority to vote it down. That majority consists of Tory Members sitting for marginal seats that they acquired from Labour at the general election. Not one of those Tory Members would be here if, in his election campaign, he had hinted to the voters whom he deceived that his election to Parliament would bring about double inflation, countless bankruptcies, intolerable interest rates, cuts in pensions and social benefits and the largest dole queues for half a century.
That temporary majority will do its grisly work tonight, but the Opposition will speak for the people. We shall continue to fight for the people until the people themselves are given the chance to cast their votes.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) made a characteristic speech. I doubt whether anyone in the country will be any the wiser about what the Opposition would do, unless it is to do exactly as they did last time, in which case the level of unemployment would continue to rise and, as far as I can see, no attempts would be made to reduce it.
I should like to begin by referring to the national insurance surcharge and the right hon. Gentleman's comments upon it. The situation is perfectly plain. I am grateful to the Opposition for drawing it to our attention. If they have a little patience, they will see that they completely destroy one of the main purposes of their amendment. I should like to state exactly what has happened.
Since the national insurance surcharge was introduced in 1977, it has been tied in with national insurance

contributions and with the upper earnings limit for earnings-related contributions. During that time the upper earnings limit has increased from £95 in 1976 to £200 in 1981. The statutes provide that the upper earnings limit shall be set at between six-and-a-half and seven-and-a-half times the single person's pension, and the new limit to operate from next April will be £200, which is slightly less than seven-and-a-half times the single person's pension rate. In effect, this does no more than keep the take from surcharge broadly constant in real terms.
In this matter we have followed the same procedures as those used by the Opposition when they were in office. After announcing the changes in the earnings limit and the employers' contributions, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave estimates for the total impact and mentioned the self-employed. He then said:
Having regard, however, to the financial pressures on industry and the way in which the employer's share has grown in recent years, employers' contribution rates—including the surcharge—will remain unchanged."—[Official Report, 24 November 1980; Vol. 994, col. 316.]
That is perfectly correct. Employers' contribution rates and the rate of the surcharge are unchanged. We are continuing the practice of adjusting the range of earnings to which those rates apply in line with inflation.
However, it has been interesting to look at the history of this matter. The surcharge of 2 per cent. was introduced in the Budget in April 1977. At that time, 1·4 million people were unemployed. In fact, the number of unemployed had gone up from 1·28 million the previous April to 1·4 million. Therefore, the Opposition's answer when in Government was to slap on industry a surcharge of 2 per cent., which presumably they thought would have some effect on their borrowing requirement, otherwise why did they do it? Here they are today trying to argue in their amendment that the Chancellor's measures announced on Monday were designed to create more unemployment. What did they do in 1978, when unemployment was still rising?—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was not."] Yes, it was. By 1 April 1978, unemployment had gone up to 1·45 million. I have checked the figures carefully.
In the autumn of that year the Labour Government put up the surcharge from 2 per cent. to 3½ per cent. But now the Opposition are trying to argue that the measures announced by the Chancellor on Monday are likely to cause more unemployment. That is precisely what they did twice in the course of two years.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has just made clear that the second increase in the surcharge took place in the autumn of 1978, when, he knows, unemployment was falling. According to the figures published by the Government a fortnight ago, employment rose by 350,000 in the last three years in which the Labour Party was in power, and unemployment fell by 100,000 in the last two years. The burden of our complaint against the Chancellor on Monday was that he misled the House. There is no question but that he did, because many Conservative Members have said that they had no idea of the effect of raising the threshold.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked the Chancellor what was the net effect of the mini-Budget on manufacturing costs, the Chancellor said that that sort of question raised many implications. Indeed it does. But the most important


feature is the reduction in MLR. It is a precise, visible and effective reduction of the costs to manufacturing industry. The CBI has made it clear that the increase in the threshold for the national insurance contributions has reduced the effect of the MLR cut by more than 50 per cent., and the rest of the cuts is nullified by the increase for sickness benefits. Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the example of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and apologise to the House?

Mr. Prior: If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would keep extremely quiet about the national insurance surcharge. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he imposed a national insurance surcharge of 3½ per cent.—at a time when unemployment doubled. I do not think that he has any case for saying what he has said this afternoon. The procedure followed was precisely the same procedure as has been followed year after year, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr.Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: No; I want to get on with my speech.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the Secretary of State has not answered the serious point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order has not been raised with me. A question was raised from the Opposition Front Bench, but it was not a point of order. I doubt very much whether there is a point of order for me on the content of a Minister's reply.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There must surely be some sort of remedy in your hands if a Minister of the Crown comes to this House and clearly attempts to cheat—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for argument between both sides of the House. I do not like the word "cheat". The English language is very rich, and there are many other words that are parliamentary.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have invited us to try to keep within the rules of order in finding a suitable parliamentary expression. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear in a lunch-time broadcast today that the Chancellor of the Exchequer involuntarily misled the House. Would it not be decent for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a similar apology to the House?

Mr. Prior: In no way have I or the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House. There is nothing for this side of the House to apologise for, but I thought that we should deal with that problem first and get it out of the way. I am sorry if I have upset the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) by reminding him about the national insurance surcharge. I understand that he does not want to be reminded of its effect on unemployment when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he brought up the question and so he must face up to it.
When I hear the right hon. Member for Chesterfield talking about the number of people unemployed, I must remind him and the House that, serious though the unemployment position is, unemployment did not start in May 1979. The right hon. Gentleman talks about

2,100,000 people who were mistaken in 1979 and who will not make the same mistake again, but may I remind him that there were 1·4 million unemployed under his Government? For any Labour Member to try to make out that unemployment started in May 1979 and that our policies resulted in 2 million unemployed is a total travesty of the facts.
The House knows that ever since the 1950s, when our productivity was higher than that of almost any other country in Western Europe, productivity has declined, and we now have the lowest productivity of any industrialised country of Western Europe.
Those are some of the reasons why unemployment has been higher in each successive economic cycle in the last 20 years. The remedies that were tried in the past have not worked. We can see now perhaps more clearly that the problems are deep-seated, and they cannot be put right by instant change. Long-term problems call for long-term solutions. That is the only thing that will get this country out of its difficulties.
With regard to employment, the most successful countries are those that have the best control of inflation. There is no doubt about that. We must not forget that there was a sharply rising trend of inflation all through the early months of 1979. Part of the reason for that was—

Mr.AlecJones: VAT.

Mr. Prior: Part of the reason for that was the inevitable increases in inflation that followed the ending of pay policy, and the problems that price control was creating—pent-up price controls—during the early months of that year, leading to a general election, helped to lead to an increase in the rate of inflation. Labour Members know that that was happening.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Prior: Lower inflation leads to lower interest rates and, therefore, to the welcome cut in MLR that was announced by the Chancellor on Monday. In addition, borrowing by the Government must be kept down if the private sector is to expand and flourish.
However, in a difficult transitional stage, it is right to seek to alleviate hardship and ease that change wherever possible. Therefore, much of the £2·3 billion for the nationalised industries is designed for that purpose. British Shipbuilders has had to shed 17,500 jobs since it came into operation, and in the last 18 months British Steel has shed 46,000 jobs. In the private sector, we have also been trying to help as best we can with the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. In the textile industry alone, 150,000 workers have been helped in that way. All that makes nonsense of the claim that we are deliberately engineering unemployment.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is inclined to cheat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is reasonably good at English, and he will find another remark.

Mr. Prior: I should not have said that; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
The proof that we care is contained in the statement that I made on behalf of my right hon. Friends and the


Government last Friday. At that time the right hon. Member for Chesterfield welcomed the measures in it. He was not so generous this afternoon.
We are seeking to improve the system of work preparation for young people and the vocational education and training for those in work. Our immediate aim is to help young people into schemes from which they can derive real benefit. This means an increase of 70 per cent. over the number of places this year and a total of 450,000 places. We want to improve these young people's chances in a permanent manner. This is why particular emphasis will be placed on good-quality work experience schemes, on a major expansion of work preparation courses and on training workshops, and, of course, taking advantage wherever possible of spare training capacity in industry and commerce.
Almost 200,000 more opportunities will be needed. These cannot just be conjured up. The YOP is a collaborative programme. At its heart are its sponsors. We need many more employers to come forward with offers of help, particularly large organisations. It costs the sponsors nothing but commitment, and the rewards will be there.
I welcome the announcement made yesterday by the CBI that it is setting up a new special programmes unit under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Carr. This will actively encourage companies to increase the number of YOP places which they offer and to develop and improve the content of what is provided. This is a most timely and valuable initiative which I hope the whole House will join in supporting.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I think I am right in saying that nationally about one in four of the places in the YOP are provided by either the local authorities or public bodies. What confidence does the Secretary of State have that his targets will be met at a time when his colleagues are busy trying to contract the public sector generally?

Mr. Prior: I think that the majority of new places will be provided by industry, but the MSC recognises that it has a mammoth task in providing the number of places, although it is confident that it will do so. Not only are we confident that we shall provide the number of places. Our aim is significantly to improve the quality of the training aspect of the YOP. The amount of off-the-job training has increased. Seventeen per cent. of work experience trainees received off-the-job training in 1978–79. Last year it was 38 per cent. It is currently about 40 per cent. That is some achievement, testifying to the hard work and the fruitful collaboration of the MSC, the sponsors and the education service.

Mr. David Alton: I accept that the MSC and the YOP do a very good job. However, does not the Minister realise that many young people believe that these programmes are simply palliatives? Is he aware that, for instance, at the Leece Street employment office in Liverpool, which I visited the week before last, 10,000 people under the age of 19 were registered as unemployed and only 26 vacancies had been notified as available by the Liverpool careers office?

Mr. Prior: That is why we are expanding the YOP to the extent that young people will have an opportunity of staying in a programme longer and of changing from one

programme to another. It is why this will cover 16-yearolds and 17-year-olds, and some 18-year-olds, and it is why we have also brought 18-year-olds more within the range of the community enterprise programme than was perhaps possible under the special temporary employment programme. I certainly do not want in any way to minimise the seriousness of the problem, particularly in areas such as Liverpool.
I want to comment on the community enterprise programme and the long-term unemployed. I recognise very well that the problems of the long-term unemployed and the problems of old people who are unemployed are, if anything, more serious, certainly on a personal basis, than perhaps the problems of the young. Whilst I think that we are doing an enormous amount to help the young, we have to recognise that the only practical way of providing jobs for the long-term unemployed and for the many people aged 40 or 50 with family responsibilities is to provide proper jobs.
Having said that, however, and that being the Government's main aim, I want to say that I believe that the community enterprise programme will generate schemes which will be practically useful both to unemployed people and to their communities. The more that we can encourage voluntary organisations to play a part, now that we have given an indication that the schemes can last for three years, the more I hope that the voluntary organisations will play a part, both in recruiting people to work full time in running their schemes and in giving an opportunity for unemployed people who wish to volunteer—many will and many do—in order to do something to help the community.
I hope that those schemes will be concentrated through the community enterprise programme. This programme will also provide funds for partnerships between the private sector and the voluntary and community bodies in the creation of new enterprises. That is one of the ways in which we can help the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On this very practical point, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government are prepared to assist voluntary organisations and so on with help towards obtaining premises? One of the serious problems in areas such as Merseyside is that, although plenty of people are willing to help, they cannot necessarily obtain the premises needed to get schemes off the ground. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that help will be forthcoming in that direction?

Mr. Prior: That is something that we shall certainly be prepared to examine. I cannot believe that, if we have proper voluntary organisations and the resources available to do that, we shall be held back because we cannot find premises. In places such as Liverpool, I should have thought that there must be premises available at reasonable rents, which should be able to help us. However, certainly we shall look at that problem.

Mr. Derek Foster: As regards the community enterprise programme, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by the time he gets his 25,000 places there may well be 500,000 long-term unemployed and that, therefore, his scheme is quite derisory? Is there not now an overwhelming argument for having a scheme that is parallel to the YOP for the long-term unemployed, in which he could incorporate education and training?

Mr. Prior: I am coming to what I wish to say on training, but this is a matter of resources, and the resources that we take for schemes of this nature have to come out of the resources available for proper jobs in industries which are expanding. One has to keep a balance. In many ways, one would like to do more, but in the long run we shall solve the problem of the long-term unemployed only by providing an economy which offers proper jobs. The community enterprise programme can help only on a comparatively small scale to get this right.
The measures that I announced on Friday are the first leg of a move to help with employment combined with practical training.
I come now to what I believe is a vital new step, taken at this very difficult time, to help to lay a sound foundation for the future. I have spoken already of our bad productivity record. I have no doubt that part of the cause is our failure to have adequate training—training for management, for industrial relations, for skills, for work experience and the basics of industrial life, and for a simple understanding of straightforward economic problems.
The solution of some of these problems has been helped by legislation—the 1964 and 1973 Acts—but we lag behind other countries, not so much in legislation but in our attitudes towards training. There is greater awareness of the problem now that there has been an opportunity, perhaps the best opportunity, to do something about it. Clearly, there is a need for some fresh thinking. All the efforts of the past years have not prevented shortages of skill holding us back whenever the economy has got moving. This has been particularly marked in skills associated with the newer technologies. Yet, compared with other countries, few of our young people have the opportunity of systematic training leading to recognised vocational qualifications.
The number of apprenticeships on offer continues to decline, despite the fact that we are subsidising 25,000 apprenticeships this year. Opportunities for retraining or upgrading later in life are still very much the exception rather than the rule. As a nation, we clearly need to put more effort into training and to direct it to better effect. We need to do that now. If we wait until the economic upturn is upon us, it will be too late.
Of course, all is not bad. We have a fine tradition of craftsmanship and of technical education in this country. Despite the need to retain a tight control on public expenditure, we continue to spend about £250 million per annum on training services. Putting Government money into training is not necessarily the whole answer. In addition, we are expanding the youth opportunities programme and our support for unified vocational preparation. The Government wish, as resourses permit, to work towards a point at which every 16 and 17-year-old who is not in education or in a job is assured of vocational preparation lasting, as necessary, up to his or her eighteenth birthday.
Both the CBI and the TUC have emphasised the need to maintain, extend and improve industrial training. We now need a new sense of direction and, to some extent, a new framework for industrial training. The review carried out by the MSC was concerned with future policy as well as with the future of training institutions. I should like to deal first with that point.
In the Government's view, we need a more systematic provision of vocational preparation for 16 and 17-year-

olds. The links between training and education need to be improved. The apprenticeship system must be modernised and made more flexible in response to changing demands in industry and changing educational patterns among young people. Wider opportunities need to be provided for the training and retraining of, adults. I have long been conscious of a gap in our training arrangements at technician and related levels as well as in relation to supervisors. If we are to make the best use of new technology in modernising our economy, it is essential to close that gap. To do that, we must try to make training at this level more accessible to as many people as possible.
I am convinced that we need more open opportunities for technical training. By "open" I mean that there should be no formal pre-entry educational qualifications and that such opportunities should be available to people irrespective of whether they can join with others for structured classes at set times in working hours. New technology not only makes this training revolution necessary but can also provide part of the means, such as video and cassette recorders.
One of the windfall benefits of the new technology is that it carries with it the seeds to spread its growth. The training techniques and mechanisms that it provides are remarkable. If we can grasp and harness those, we shall be well on the way to exploiting fully all its potential. That is why I am asking the MSC to come forward with a scheme of distance learning—what I call an "open tech"—in conjunction, of course, with existing technical colleges and colleges of further education.
There is a great willingness among young people and adults to learn new skills, if properly presented. We must tap that potential before it is frustrated or dies. On all these training issues, it is vitally important for us to move forward and to get it right. I am considering with the MSC and in collaboration with those concerned in industry and education how we can make progress. I hope that proposals will be published for consultation as soon as possible in the new year.
For some years we have had an extensive system of industrial training boards. Currently, there are 24 industrial training boards and between them they cover 55 per cent. of all employees in the economy. Hon. Members will know the statutory powers that they have. The review recommended that this system should broadly continue. The consultations have shown widespread support for the continued need for industrial training bodies of some kind. There are, however, strong differences of view between employers as well as between employers and others about whether such arrangements should continue on a statutory basis.
In the Government's view, that question can be decided only sector by sector, having regard to the extent to which they might be met by other means. The MSC proposes to carry out such a review. I am asking the MSC to do so urgently so that the Government may have a sound basis on which to take final decisions next summer about particular boards.
I want to make it clear that the Government's aim will be to extend the area of reliance on voluntary arrangements as far as possible and to keep statutory industrial training boards in a few key sectors where they are likely to be essential to securing the wider training objectives to which I have referred. We shall await the outcome of the review, but we intend to seek powers to abolish an industrial training board where we judge it right to do so, and not


only on the basis of an MSC recommendation. On the other hand, I also want to make clear that national priorities may require continuation of a statutory industrial board even where some employers are opposed to that.
Where the need can be met by voluntary arrangements, the cost will clearly fall on the employers concerned. In principle, it seems right to the Government that where an industrial training board continues on a statutory basis the costs should be met by employers. On the other hand, while clear on the principle, the Government recognise the difficulties which many firms will find in meeting any significant extra costs at present. The extent of those difficulties will not be clear until the review has been completed next summer and until we know what boards will remain, which firms they cover and what new voluntary arrangements may need to be set up.
It is the Government's present intention that Exchequer funding of industrial training boards' operating costs should be reduced in one way or another in 1981–82 and cease in 1982–83. However, we shall be prepared to consider the timing in the light of the review. It is essential to maintain close parliamentary scrutiny of the levy-raising powers of industrial training boards. Accordingly, we do not propose any change in the present arrangements, whereby levies cannot exceed 1 per cent. of payroll, save by affirmative resolution. The necessary legislation for these changes will be brought before Parliament in the new year.
The MSC is in a unique position to carry out the review. It has representatives from trade unions, employers and, of course, education and local government. We can build on their suggestions. It is the MSC's commitment and that of unions and employers with educationists that can help us to carry forward this new training theme. That is an important point.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth): Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement is a clear recipe for bad companies not to undertake any training? They will live off the backs of good companies that want to train young people. I plead with the Secretary of State to give a great deal of thought to the proposals before introducing any legislation. I urge him to hold the widest possible consultations before wandering into a disaster area for training.

Mr. Prior: I accept that the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman were held 10 or 15 years ago. I do not wish to prejudge the results of the review to be conducted by the MSC and which will be reported to me. I am not convinced that a case can be made out at present for the continuation of training boards on the existing scale. In many cases, a bureaucracy has developed that is not giving us the results that we need. I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. This subject will be very much in our minds when we review what the MSC has had to say.
We shall achieve more training if we put voluntary and modern methods to greater use rather than continuing with the bureaucratic system that has built up in recent years.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the important question of the changes that he is proposing in the ITB structure, can he say whether the savings that accrue from the phased withdrawal of the Government's commitment to meet the

administrative costs of the boards will go to the Government, or will he make the money available to meet the training costs of hoards, wholly or in part?

Mr. Prior: I have made clear that we believe in principle that the operating costs of the boards that continue should be carried by the industries concerned. The Government will make certain savings on operating costs. On the other hand, we are continuing to put £250 million into training for skills and the training opportunities scheme. Although the decision to put operating costs on to industry has been taken, we shall decide when we have the results of the review when it would be right to implement that decision.
I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has left the Chamber, because I wish to refer to him. I understand that he is carrying his campaign to Liverpool this weekend. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has any right to preach to the rest of us on the evils of unemployment. He made many intemperate speeches and attacks on his party from below the Gangway in the 1960s. He said that the total of 600,000 unemployed was the worst scar on his colleagues' record. On another occasion he said that the level of unemployment was the worst domestic crime committed by Labour in office. Yet the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government during whose period of office the number of unemployed more than doubled. Despite that, Labour Members still tended to talk glibly about reducing the level of unemployment to 700,000 by 1979.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has returned to the Chamber. I have a particular point to address to him. His record means that he ought to exercise some restraint on his flow of oratory.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: That is no problem for the Secretary of State.

Mr. Prior: It has never been a problem for me. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am interested in getting at the facts.
There is another reason, apart from the Leader of the Opposition's record, why he should show some restraint. He and his colleagues should ponder the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill(Mr. Alton) in a Sunday newspaper last weekend:
The last thing we need in Liverpool is more bitterness.
I hope that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Liverpool this weekend he will remember his record. If he expects to be taken seriously, he had better start telling the country why and how things would be different under a future Labour Government compared with what happened under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sorry that I was out of the Chamber for a moment when the Secetary of State started this part of his speech. There is a great difference between his Government and the Labour Government. Both Governments faced great world recessions, but the Labour Government struggled hard to bring down the unemployment figures and the right hon. Gentleman seems to be struggling to push up the figures.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so scornful about the Labour Government's achievements in bringing down the level of unemployment, will he tell us when he thinks that his Government, with his measures, will be able to get the unemployment total down to the level that existed when he took office?

Mr. Prior: The one thing that I will not do is to try to make false forecasts. Members of the Labour Government, including the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), prophesied time and again how much unemployment would fall. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I do not play that game.
I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will start telling the country why and how it will be different under a future Labour Government and what he would do. How would he reflate without going straight back to inflation? Is his answer a further incomes policy? If so, why did it not work last time? How would he deal with the inevitable slump in trade that would be caused if we pulled out of the EEC or resorted to import controls? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to Liverpool, we are entitled to ask him to deal with those problems. Why should the same old policies that doubled unemployment over a five-year economic cycle—not just at the bottom of the cycle—succeed next time round?
Many of the right hon. Gentleman's audience, including the 37,861 people who became unemployed in Liverpool during the five years of the Labour Government, will want answers to those questions. The rhetoric of the soap-box, which is what we have had from the right hon. Gentleman in the past three weeks, will not give us the answers or give the country confidence. The speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield added nothing to the debate, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Some of the measures announced by the Secretary of State are useful, but he reminded me of a boy going to the seashore with a bucket and spade and building sand castles that will inevitably be washed away by the incoming tide.
One of the factors that will deepen the unemployment catastrophe is the statement in the Queen's Speech:
My Government reaffirm their strong commitment to the European Community.
There is a conspiracy on both sides of the House to refuse to recognise that that emperor has no clothes. Our membership of the EEC has been a disaster. One of the great phoney promises made when we were discussing our accession to the EEC was the suggestion that failure to join would result in a serious loss of jobs in the United Kingdom. We have seen how little there was in that threat. More unemployment is on the way from the Common Market if, as indications show, the fisheries policy is to sell out our fishing rights.
Unemployment on an increasing scale will follow the promise in the Queen's Speech that the Government
will take all steps necessary to maintain firm monetary and fiscal policies.
That is a chilling prospect. All the evidence should be convincing the Government of the necessity to abandon those policies.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned recently that the publications of the CBI resembled the front page of Tribune. We have now reached the stage at which the Daily Mail has used its front page for an editorial demanding that the Government make an immediate U-turn. That is something that the Daily Mail editor said he never thought that he would have to do. But the Government carry on regardless.
The Prime Minister is apparently working on Nixon's law that "If two wrongs do not make a right, try three." The Chancellor of the Exchequer came on Monday with a swift attempt to get things right. In arguments across the Floor, a lot of nonsense is talked about the rise in wages causing unemployment. That has been exploded by the number of instances quoted in the House of firms that met all the criteria that the Government claimed were necessary to ensure survival and yet have gone to the wall and landed in the bankruptcy court.
The state of industry and the appalling level of unemployment arise mainly from the policies of the Government. The pensioners have been robbed by the refusal to keep their increases up with inflation and have had their pensions reduced by 1 per cent. This does not show much confidence on the part of Government that inflation will be coming down all that quickly. The payment two weeks late of increases this year was a sign of the mean way in which the Government operate.
I want to be fair about the one aspect of the Queen's Speech relating to Scotland. It states:
Measures to improve the law in Scotland relating to education and to local government and to protect wives' home rights will be laid before you.
If the latter refers to doing something at last about battered wives, it is welcomed by my party. It is one of the matters that we have endeavoured to press.
In education, the Government cannot find the money to see that the schools are properly funded. They are closing colleges of education while the proposed legislation is no doubt intended to subsidise fee-paying schools. If people in Scotland who wish to have their children privately educated foot the bill, no one can have any objection. It is a different matter when one is talking of schools that take money from the Government as well as from private contributions. That seems to me to be robbing the public purse. It is indefensible when one considers how Scottish education is being denied funds.
The Queen's Speech contained no mention of devolution. That is a clear indication that devolution has been totally abandoned by the Conservative Party, despite the fact that even in the last Session, under the Labour Government, a few Conservative Members were making noises in favour of devolution. Nothing has been done by Lord Home to redeem his promise to produce a better Bill. We can see that the promise was worthless.
Unemployment in my constituency is now 16 per cent. It will inevitably increase as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention to cut the rate support grant. The director of finance in my local authority told the council two weeks ago that the increase in rates will be 47 per cent., or probably higher. There will be no alternative but to increase rates and make some workers redundant.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that making people redundant in local government lands central Government with an even greater burden to be placed on the taxpayer or the public sector borrowing requirement? On average, a man with a wife and two children to support costs the taxpayer £6,000 a year. That is the difference between the man being in employment and out of employment. The result of people being out of work in local government is to add to the burden on the Exchequer.

Mr. Stewart: That is correct. I was intending to quote the figures. For a single man, the loss of revenue covering


income tax, loss of indirect tax and national insurance contributions would amount monthly to an average of £283. The transfer payments that would be lost—unemployment benefit and so on—would total £436. That makes £719 a month. Those were official figures given to a noble Lord in another place. They show the appalling cost to the Government.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said that the Prime Minister would be ditched by the Conservative Party in three years. I believe that he is being unduly pessimistic. I have a feeling that she will be walking the plank long before that time. There will be no industrial base in a much shorter time than three years. That message should get through to the Conservative Party.
If there is a tremendous Left-wing surge waiting on the Opposition Benches to dismantle capitalism, it will not find much to dismantle at the end of the day. Usury has already taken over from the industrial society. There used to be a jibe that the Government were operating on O-level economics. If they were up to that level, hon. Members would have more confidence in what they are doing. It may happen, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said, that the Conservative majority will vote down the amendments on the Order Paper. It is that kind of mindless, misplaced loyalty that induced Conservative Members in 1940 to give a vote of confidence to Neville Chamberlain at a time when he was obviously losing the war. Some have higher priorities. It is up to Conservative Members who are aware of the situation to use their votes in a constructive way.

Mr. Peter Hordern: No one can doubt the seriousness of the unemployment situation. I thought that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was right to point out the gravity of the situation, although not in the manner that he chose to do so. It is a serious situation. It has been deteriorating, so far as I can see, in each of the economic cycles since the war.
We have now an altogether new economic factor that has not occurred at any time since the war. It is doubtful whether it has occurred at any time in our industrial history. I refer to the effect of the appreciation of the pound sterling in relation to other currencies. I do not think that at any time in our industrial history we have had to face an appreciation of some 50 per cent. in the value of the pound compared with other currencies. It has meant for large parts of manufacturing industry, especially the traditional manufacturing industries, a challenge to their margins that they are unable to face.
The result is that in Scotland, the North-East, the North-West and the West Midlands traditional firms making basic manufactured goods are unable to compete. This is a totally new position. I suppose that the nearest one can find to it was the return to the gold standard in 1923 at the wrong price. It does the country no good for us to minimise the gravity of the situation or the challenge that is now being unleashed on manufacturing industry.
It is impossible to foresee a state of affairs in which we can get to a post-industrial revolution within three or four years. It is, therefore, all the more important for those who are now unemployed and for the economy to analyse more carefully than has often been done what has gone wrong in the past 10 years to create this situation. I make no apology for going back over this period of 10 years. It is

important that we should do so. I make no apology for referring, in particular, to manufacturing industry, because manufacturing still employs about 30 per cent. of the total work force and is responsible for about 30 per cent. of the GDP. It represents an important part of our national product.
The main criticism from the Opposition Benches seems to be that the Government are slavishly attached to monetary policy, as though it were some form of arcane religion. If we are, I should point out that we are more slavishly attached to St. Augustine than to St. Paul. The House will, of course, recall the words of St. Augustine: "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."
So far, monetary policy is very slow in being observed. The level of M3 has gone up not by 7 to 11 per cent. but by nearer 20 per cent. Although we were told that the public sector borrowing requirement would be restricted to £8½ billion, we find that £8½ billion has been borrowed in the first six months of this year.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Gentleman was not quite right in what he said about St. Augustine. The words he should have used, reflecting the policy of the Government, are "Lord, I was chaste, but not now."

Mr. Hordern: Happily, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not correct in his textual analysis of St. Augustine, and probably of St. Paul too.
The money supply targets appear to be out of control. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was setting the correct course in seeking to reduce borrowing as far as he could, and he has done so by cutting Government expenditure to the level at which it was supposed to have been six months ago—not without great sacrifice. We have been told that serious discussions, even disputes, have taken place within the Cabinet about these cuts.
But what is ignored is the way in which the public sector has grown over the past 10 years. I shall deal with this matter in particular, because it is the additional weight of public expenditure and, in particular, the movement of people out of the private sector into the public sector during the past 10 years which have created the pressure on manufacturing industry today. In the past 10 years, 1 million people have moved out of manufacturing industry and 1½ million people have moved into local authorities.
I want to refer in particular to two of the largest employers in the public sector, the National Health Service and the education service. In 1968, which I reckon was the last time that public expenditure was under control, the NHS employed 710,000 people. In 1978 it employed 1·175 million people, an increase of about 60 per cent.

Mr. Haynes: On the matter of the increase of manpower within the NHS, the hon. Gentleman should remember that his own Government created that situation.

Mr. Hordern: That was a rather unfortunate remark, because there is nothing in any reorganisation which requires any increase in personnel. The reorganisation was followed by a massive recruitment campaign, but before that took place the size of the NHS had been increasing year after year. In case it is said, as it sometimes is, that reorganisation meant that some people formerly employed by local authority health and social services departments were transferred to the NHS, let me say that the figure for


employment in those departments of local authorities rose by some 10 per cent. compared with the figure before reorganisation.
The result has been that in the National Health Service alone the wage and salary bill increased from £715 million in 1970 to £4 billion in 1980, an increase of about 17 per cent. every year.
I recently asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the numbers employed in the NHS. He replied:
the latest year for which comparable and complete information is available is 1978, although it is possible to provide an estimate of staff for 1979." [Official Report, 7 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 686.]
Here we are in November 1980, and it appears that the Department of Health and Social Security does not even know how many people it employs.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said the other day that he was able after 18 months to say precisely what everyone in his Department did. That was a notable advance, though I should have liked it to be made some months earlier. But it appears that the Department of Health and Social Security has no idea how many people it employs, even now.
I turn to the question of education. In 1968, 1·1 million people were employed. In 1978, 10 years later, the number had increased to 1·5 million—an increase of some 40 per cent. Very worthily, the number of teachers and lecturers had increased, from 407,000 to 541,000, no doubt improving the standards and staff-pupil ratios in those years. But what about those who neither lecture nor teach? Can it really be said that it was necessary to increase the full-time staff who neither lecture nor teach by 10 per cent. to 201,000, or the part-time staff by 30 per cent., in 10 years, so that the authorities now employ 483,000 people?

Mr. O'Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the employment of many assistants in the education service has been in order to free teachers for the job of teaching, and not having them preoccupied with administration?

Mr. Hordern: I have no doubt that that is true and that the education service has benefited thereby, but can the country afford it? Of course, there has been an advance in standards, but when we compare the number of people who neither lecture nor teach today—483,000—and the 90,000 in 1960, we see no comparable improvement in our educational standards to merit that sort of increase.
The result has been that local authorities' wages and salaries have risen from £2·7 billion to just under £10 billion in 10 years, an increase of 18 per cent. every year.
That is the real problem that manufacturing industry and the rest of the productive sector must deal with—these vast increases in the cost of wages and salaries. For a time, between 1972 and 1976, the problem was obscured by Government measures. At that time successive Governments printed a great deal of money, the money supply being up by 23 per cent. in 1972 and 25 per cent. in 1973.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman supported that.

Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I was against it all the time, and I remain against it.
Even more important, in 1974 the last Government succeeded in borrowing $14 billion abroad to sustain that kind of expenditure. The pound dropped from $2·50 to its lowest point in October 1976 of $1·57. Within that time manufacturing industry was able to sustain the growing weight of the public sector because of the decline in the value of sterling. But it is no excuse for manufacturing industry that it increased its own wages and salaries in those years by about 140 per cent., for an increase in production of just 5 per cent. What did it suppose would happen?
In 1976 the IMF made its second visit, as it always does with every Labour Government, and produced what appeared to be some very stringent measures, including the corset. From then on, the position began to improve because of the IMF. Then, in 1978 and 1979, North Sea oil also had a dramatic effect on the pound.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) is giving a very interesting analysis of the growth in manpower in various areas. He is very familiar with the City and banking. Perhaps he can give us the figures for those areas as well so that we may have the complete picture.

Mr. Hordern: As a matter of fact, I do not have the figures for the City or for banking. In any event, I cannot understand the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman attempts to make. The City and banking make up the most productive part of the whole country. They have produced the invisible earnings without which the country would not have sustained its present existence.
Since the discovery of North Sea oil and since its effects began to be felt—and, it should be said, because of overseas confidence in the present Government—the pound has risen considerably. It is now standing at about $2·37 to the pound compared with $1·57 four years ago. As I remarked before, the effect on manufacturing industry is very serious. I do not see, the decline which some people think may occur because of the reduction in the MLR. The basic position remains as it was. The effect of North Sea oil and the effect of the Government's determination to get inflation under control are a very attractive combination for overseas investors. Therefore, I believe that manufacturing industry will continue to be under considerable strain.
Manufacturing industry has another problem. Due to these events, its employment has shrunk from 8·3 million in 1970 to 6·7 million in 1980. But its problems have been made worse by the fact that in the last four years it has increased its wages and salaries by about 75 per cent. while its production has fallen by 5 per cent. As the House knows, our real difficulty is that our manufacturing base in any case is very small compared with that of our major competitors such as France and West Germany. We appear to employ more people in the manufacturing process than other countries do to produce the same article.
My concern is that when the recovery comes those who are now unemployed in manufacturing will not necessarily revert to their former jobs. That cannot be considered certain.
The position has been made worse by the fact that the local authorities and the Government last year paid their employees 29 per cent. more in wages and salaries because of the Clegg commission, the Pay Research Unit and the


comparability process. That is why the 6 per cent. cash limit which the Government announced recently is a most important factor. It is not one, however, which should be applied to the nationalised industries, because for the most part they have been running down their own manpower. But the same cannot be said of local authorities or of the National Health Service.
The result, therefore, is that although 10 years ago, thanks to the International Monetary Fund, public expenditure was more or less under control, every year since then the size of the public service has increased, and I think that it is now much too large for the private sector to sustain. If it is possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to know accurately what everyone in his Department is doing, why cannot the same exercise be done in the Departments of Health and Social Security and Education and Science? I do not think that either Department knows how many people it employs. What is required is a close examination of the manpower in each of these growing Departments to see whether we need it. That is a top priority.
I have said already that I am most concerned about the effect on manufacturing industry and on future employment. It is not possible to enter a post-industrial phase within two short years when the pound has appreciated so much. I recognise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is trying to do to help with regional development and in other ways, but the Department of Industry seems more like a field hospital than a Department which is making any serious attempt to regenerate investment in industry.
For a long time, I have been suspicious of the size of the Department of Industry and the work that it has attempted to do under successive Governments. I know that it is very well meant, but it is very time consuming and there are immensely complicated schemes with a great many bureaucrats looking after them. I ask my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the position in other countries, especially in the Republic of Ireland, where there is a flat rate corporation tax of 10 per cent. for manufacturing companies which they have been told will last until the end of the century. As a result, the Republic of Ireland has been far more successful than we have been in attracting manufacturing companies.
What is more, in order to revive our manufacturing sector we need to attract more manufacturing companies from abroad. A year ago, the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) and I went to Japan where we agreed how necessary it was to attract Japanese investment to our country. This is necessary not just because of the technology possessed by Japanese companies but because of their industrial relations. We have many lessons to learn from that process.
Currently, we are conducting an experiment with enterprise zones in selected parts of the country. Those are all very fine, and I understand the attraction of doing away with certain of the planning forms, but, again, do they really grasp the nettle in the way that some of the free trade zones do in the United States, which are much more revolutionary in their application? Semi-manufactured goods are allowed to be to be imported from abroad as long as they are manufactured in the United States, and they do not attract Customs duty. In my view, we ought to have an experiment with that sort of free trade zone in various parts of the country, especially in places such as Liverpool, where they would be particularly suitable.
The position is very serious. We ought not to shrink or turn away from special experiments which will secure employment in our most hard-hit regions. The Government must be more imaginative than they have been so far in looking at these alternatives. But we ought not to regard the present situation as though it were one which could be readily mastered by a change in policy. The House will recognise that we have tried alternative policies. We have tried printing money. We have tried reducing the MLR. When it was last tried, it was not manufacturing industry which borrowed; it was the property speculators, and they were followed by the financial institutions. I give this warning: that if the MLR is reduced too far the House cannot be sure that that process will not start up again.
It is very important to keep firm monetary control and to keep a proper check on public expenditure. I am sorry to say that, in my view, my right hon. and hon. Friends have far more to do in controlling public expenditure if we are to get the balance of the economy right. It is high time that they attended to this matter.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) was forthright and scant in his support of the Government. He represents a growing number of hon. Members on the Government Benches who are increasingly uneasy about the Government's monetarist policy as it is working, not least on the exchange rate. The hon. Gentleman is bothered about the inconsistency of their public spending and monetarist policy plans. However, I propose to concentrate on the subject of today's debate, which is unemployment.
We used to think it a terrible blow when unemployment increased by 30,000 in one month. In September, it increased by 89,000. In October, it increased by 108,000. This month, the figure is 136,000. It is quite appalling that at such a time Ministers should be thinking at all of cutting public expenditure.
But we should not underestimate the victory of the wets, and my purpose is to cheer them on. Tucked away at the back of the documents issued on Monday was a statement about increases and decreases in the volume of public expenditure since the White Paper was published in the spring. The increases in public spending were as great as the cuts and amounted to £1,000 million. Most increases were in the Department of Industry.
The wets have also forced the Government to abandon their monetary targets up to April next year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that money supply is likely to exceed the targets. He said that he was not rebasing or revising the targets. He said that he was not rolling on the targets.
I take the Government's monetary strategy seriously. I think that Government Back Benchers also take it seriously. But increasingly we hear strident remarks from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry in particular not about money but about the unions. They say that the unions are to blame for everything. We are learning that monetary strategy is not perhaps really the instrument—or that, at best, it is an instrument in pursuit of another objective—to bash the unions. Monetary strategy is a veil which has been torn aside to show the hidden agenda of the hard-liners in the Cabinet. That hidden agenda is to undermine the unions.
The last Tory Government having failed to reform the trade unions statutorily, the present Government have decided that they must try to destroy them economically. The forefront of the attack on the unions is neither the Employment Act nor the important but still relatively minor issue of picketing but the whole thrust of the economic policy. Employment and unemployment are the instruments which the Government are using to beat the unions to try to bring about a structural reform on the collective bargaining process.
First, the strategy will not work. The middle-class, Tory voting, service industry-based, South-East dwelling people in Britain might be able to do without British manufacturing, they might be able to do without British steel, British engineering, British textiles and clothing, but they cannot do without British services. The important issues are not simply the cuts in commuter services, to which a whole page was devoted in The Guardian today, but the vulnerability of the soft underbelly of the South-East to the wave of industrial disputes in the public sector which sooner or later will bring the disorder of which the TUC general secretary has warned.
The strategy will not work, because it is a strange perversion of a strategy. The depression of the 1930s was largely responsible for all the nonsenses of industrial relations today. Is it sensible to say that we need another slump to educate another generation in all the frustrations and horrors of unemployment so that they can turn into another Bolshy set of shop stewards in the next 30 years?
Not St. Augustine but St. Thomas Aquinas said that the weakest argument of all was the argument from authority. However, I shall still use it. My authority is no less than the guru himself, that distinguished academic Professor Hayek, with whom I had a fascinating conversation this morning. He is a delightful man. He is responsive to argument. Unlike Conservative Ministers, he listens and says that he must think about an idea that has not occurred to him.
Professor Hayek was engagingly frank about money. He said that he wondered whether the overdraft system in Britain was not a factor in the uncontrollability and irrelevance of money. He recalled how last year, when he could not afford to pay a bill for hospital treatment, he used his American Express card. He said that the bill had only just come in. Perhaps credit is important.
On Socialism, Professor Hayek made the point which I have made over and over again. He said that Fabian Socialism lacks a theory of production. He is bored with money and is writing about Socialism in intelligent anticipation of the next Labour Government. Professor Hayek said that he had met the Prime Minister only once and that his advice to her was that a slump and the use of the money supply would not bring about a defeat of the trade unions and a structural change in industrial bargaining. He advocated the use of a referendum to provide the authority to remove legal immunities from the trade unions altogether. Hayek says that the monetary strategy of bashing the unions cannot work. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State shrinking in horror at the suggestion of removing the legal immunities.
The second reason why the hidden agenda will not work is that the Government are trying to hit the unions through private manufacturing industry—the heart of their

support in the country. That is partly intentional and partly unintentional because of the unpredictable effect on the exchange rate of the Government's monetary policy.
Finally, the hidden agenda will not work because it will embitter another generation of working people. Conservative Members who have been involved in detail in any case of injustice to a working man know that if they and their middle-class Tory friends were in a position similar to that experienced by working men in industrial disputes they would be outraged with the sense of injustice. They would act far more intemperately than the cautious, conservative, reluctant British working man to try to remedy an injustice which eats at his heart.
The wets must now face up to the hidden agenda of their right hon. Friends. I hope that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report, which I hope will be published soon after Christmas, will help all members of the Cabinet to sort out the problem of monetary policy. Clearly, the monetary policy is not intact. Clearly, it is no panacea. No member of the Cabinet would claim that it was.
It is essential for the Secretary of State for Employment to talk to the unions. The Government need their help. We are told that the Prime Minister is "not for turning". Lord McCarthy gave a worthwhile talk today on the inevitability of an incomes policy. I hope that the Secretary of State will obtain a report of it from his officials. We hear that "the lady's not for turning". In the original play, he reminded us, the lady did turn but she did not burn. Government Ministers have burnt better men in the Prime Minister's position for breakfast.
The best solution would be an agreed incomes policy, although I suspect that the Government and the Secretary of State for Employment would regard that as being unavailable. However, the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to explore, informally and without publicity, the conditions upon which some co-operation would be available from the unions. He could then inform the Cabinet when it came to take the crucial decisions before the Budget.
What modifications in policy are needed to permit a move towards an agreed incomes policy? I predict that if those moves are not made, if the Secretary of State does not use such good will as he possesses to explore the possibilities now, the Government will be introducing a statutory incomes policy by next July. It will be appalling for us to watch the inexorable rise in unemployment in the next few months. There is nothing that the Government can do about it now, and the anger of the country will mount. However, I implore Ministers to begin to look ahead for the way out in the spring and summer of next year when the country will become uncontrollable.

Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) referred to collisions between the Government and the unions and to the need for the two sides to co-operate. He could not have heard the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the Bill that is now the Employment Act 1980. That Act in no way seeks to undermine the unions or cause a collision with them. The way in which it has been accepted is proof positive of that fact. That does not mean that the Act will not in due course need amending. However, it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that my right hon. Friend and his


Ministers in the Department are engaged in a war or are inviting a collision with the unions. That does not square with what my right hon. Friend said today and in the many debates on that Bill.

Dr. Bray: I hope that I did not say that the Secretary of State or his Ministers were engaged in a war with the unions. I said that it was a hidden agenda of a section of the Cabinet to engage in such a war.

Mr. Madel: The hon. Gentleman gave me the impression that he said the words that I attributed to him, but I shall not dwell on that point. I wish to confine myself to the Government's plans for training, as set out in the Gracoius Speech.
I particularly welcome the promise by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) that the Opposition will give the industrial training Bill a good passage through the House. It is vital to get the new training measures right. We must not expose the changes in industrial training procedures to the see-saw approach that has been adopted towards trade union legislation in the past 10 years. I welcome the relevant passage in the Queen's Speech and do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that the electorate takes most seriously the problem of unemployment. It regards unemployment as the most serious economic problem. That is not unique to 1980. It has always been the case. The difference between people in Britain and the West Germans is that they regard inflation as the most serious problem. For historical reasons we in this country take unemployment the more seriously, and the Government must therefore act accordingly.
There is irrefutable evidence that if any party is to govern the country sensibly and hold it together there must be a strong manufacturing base. In order to make sure that that base is strong and effective, we must get the right training and skills. It is, therefore, vital that the measures in the Queen's Speech, when translated into law, are effective and are fully understood for the way that they will cushion the impact of unemployment and, in due course, help to strengthen our manufacturing base.
The Manpower Services Commission is charged with the responsibility for operating these schemes. Its reaction was contained in a press notice issued last Friday which refers to the importance of young people registering at the careers service or the jobcentre as quickly as possible. It points out that the new rule debarring unemployed school leavers from obtaining supplementary benefit until the end of the holidays after they leave school might mean that young people do not register as swiftly as they have done in the past. That puts an additional onus on the careers teachers who have the responsibility of guiding and informing young people on the state of the labour market to make sure that, even though there has been a change in the rule, young people register quickly at the careers service or the jobcentre in order to be told of job opportunities.
The MSC press notice makes other important points. It rightly says that great stress
will be placed on good quality work experience schemes.
It says also that there will have to be improved training for sponsors' staff—that is, on the employers' premises. That prompts the question of who will be responsible for the additional training. Will it be done at the polytechnics or the skillcentres or elsewhere? The commission is right to stress the importance of that factor, because one of the

anxieties about the work experience scheme to date is that there has not been as great a training content as is desirable.
In the press release the commission says:
At present 40 per cent. of Y.O.P. trainees on work experience schemes get off-the-job training or further education.
The commission's target is to lift that figure to 100 per cent. The Government's determination to help on that score was revealed when my right hon. Friend announced that an "open tech" would be launched and that the MSC would be charged with the task of getting it under way.
That means that the premises of polytechnics and universities will have to be used to get the scheme under way. I hope that those institutions will look carefully at their existing staff levels, because many people working in them who might be considered surplus to requirements will not be so once the "open tech" has been launched. It is, therefore, important that a close watch is kept on that aspect, and the sooner that the commission can start detailed conversations with the institutions of education that are to help, the better.
There will obviously have to be an acceleration of the retraining of teachers, because they, too, will have a role to play in the "open tech". I am glad that my right hon. Friend said last week, in announcing the new schemes:
skillcentres will play their part in providing some of that off-the-job training."—[Official Report, 21 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 211.]
In other words, the age limit in respect of skillcentre places has been removed. Those under the age of 19 may now participate. I am glad, therefore, that additional use will be made of the vital resource of skillcentres for retraining and for launching the "open tech".
In commenting on the launching of the new schemes, the commission said that the careers service was to be expanded by a further 200 posts. The commission hopes that local authorities will have made these appointments by the beginning of next April. It is important to have monthly monitoring of progress, because, if the extra resources and opportunities are to be provided, the careers service will have a vital role to play. The commission will be anxious that those 200 posts should be filled by April. I only hope that the local authorities will co-operate fully in making sure that that target is met.
In terms of the work experience and what employers can offer, it is vital for the commission to keep in close touch with the employers who are offering places on their premises. In the past, some employers have felt that there has been insufficient consultation. If this task is to be undertaken effectively, it is important that employers' anxieties and needs are fully recognised by the commission and that the commission acts accordingly.
The size of the task is great. The MSC review of the 1973 training legislation indicates that
about 65 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales leave school at 16. Most of that group of school leavers have no, or relatively modest, formal educational qualifications.
It continues:
only about 14 per cent. of young people in Great Britain who … do not obtain an … apprenticeship receive any formal part-time education".
An attempt is being made in a massive scheme to give young people the opportunity to learn a new skill. In common with every economic problem, it will take time to reverse the trend. The trend has been for years that young people leave school with virtually no qualifications.


The only training that they are given when they get a job is to be told where to sit. I hope that the scheme will be successful.
I am especially pleased to see that the CBI has announced today, as published in The Times Business News, that it will provide 120,000 opportunities for young people to obtain work experience during the next 12 months. That is to be done under the special unit chaired by Lord Carr of Hadley. I hope that the scheme will be ongoing and that it will be increased as the years pass.
We have had a great deal of argument about national insurance contributions and what the employer pays. I maintain that we could get more young people into work earlier if for two years, for example, an employer did not have to pay the stamp for a young person in his or her first job. That is not a new idea. It has been tried with a reasonable degree of success in Belgium and elsewhere. I am certain that if we implemented it we would have young people in work earlier than if such a scheme were not adopted.
The training schemes that are included in the Gracious Speech require a shake-up in the apprenticeship scheme, which my right hon. Friend talked about, and a change in the schools' curriculum. All that will be done in the next few years requires, above all, that young people leave school better trained and qualified. Above all, we must overcome the shortage of qualified mathematics teachers as soon as possible. None of the schemes coming up that involve the MSC and nothing that the "open tech" can do can possibly succeed unless there is a dramatic improvement in the teaching of mathematics and in the understanding of mathematics by children in our schools.
This is the first Gracious Speech for many years that proposes concrete steps for training and retraining. It is a dramatic effort to cushion the effects of the recession. I wish the Government well in what they are trying to do.

Mr. Derek Foster: I do not wish to follow the line of thinking of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr.Madel). If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman made a constructive and useful contribution on employment and training.
The Secretary of State for Employment was berated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) for not offering any constructive alternatives to the present policies. As a result, I expected that the right hon. Gentleman, fresh from his recent victory, together with some of his colleagues in the Cabinet, would produce some alternatives. However, alternatives were not forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman.
I come from the North-East, where we have felt the full blast of the icy winds that the Government have caused. There are 170,000 unemployed in the Northern region, and the total is increasing daily. The Guardian states this morning that unemployment is increasing by 3,000 a week. That is entirely unacceptable. We are grateful in a sense that in the Gracious Speech and the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there has been a great shift in the emphasis of the Government's policies. This has not been the Government's intention. I am sure that some members of the Cabinet would have preferred to continue with their excessively tight monetarist policies. However, they have had to come to terms with reality.
The Government's financial strategy is in ruins. The money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement are at double the rates that were planned. We understand that the high interest rates and the overvalued pound are due entirely to the far too tight targets that the Government set themselves for the money supply and the PSBR. In other words, all the suffering that has been imposed on areas such as mine in the North-East has been entirely unnecessary.
The Government persist in pointing to the international recession and saying that unemployment is increasing throughout the Western world. That is true, but is it not also true that unemployment is increasing more rapidly in Britain than elsewhere in the Western world? Britain has seen a much more rapid fall in output, especially in manufacturing output, which has fallen by about 10 per cent. and in some sectors by as much as 14 per cent. That additional burden has been imposed upon us—a greater burden than that carried by the rest of the Western world— and the responsibility lies entirely with the Government. It is about time that they began to acknowledge their responsibility.
The Government are unable successfully to cut public expenditure as they planned. They have made five attempts to cut public expenditure, but because of the deepening recession, because their tax revenues have been less than they hoped and because their payments in benefits have been much higher than they hoped, they have succeeded only in inceasing it. Instead of public expenditure being about 3½ per cent. of GDP, in the current year it will be about 5 per cent.
What effects have these policies had on trade and industry? We have had continual complaints, especially from manufacturing industry, about high energy prices. Part of the reason for the high prices lies in the excessive cash limits that have been imposed upon nationalised industries. I think that manufacturing industry deserves to know why it has to pay £8 a ton in excise tax on fuel. That is double the rate that our European competitors have to pay.
Industrial association after industrial association has complained to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry about the effects of high interest rates and the overvalued pound. Is it not true that there has been a reduction in the competitiveness of many sections of British industry by about 30 to 40 per cent.? Much of that has been due to the overvalued pound. The decline has become so serious that the loss of competitiveness cannot be regained perhaps even in the lifetime of this Parliament, even if the Government were now to alter their policies completely. That sort of recovery would not be possible.
We are in a serious position. We can look forward only to a greater loss of jobs in the following year. We are becoming uncompetitive at an increasing rate. There has been a serious cutback in investment. Even newly industralised countries are now adopting advanced technology more rapidly than we are. There has also been a severe loss of demand, not entirely because of the national recession but also because of rapid destocking, largely as a result of high interest rates. Only recently the CBI forecast a sharp fall in investment next year.
What is the effect on employment? We know too well that 2·16 million people are without jobs. As I said earlier, 170,000 of them are in the North of England. There is a continual reduction in the number of vacancies. The Prime Minister advises people to seek jobs elsewhere, but there


are increasingly fewer to be found. Will she next advise people to emigrate in search of work, perhaps to the Far East, where they seem to know little about an international recession?

Sir William Elliott: With regard to advising people where to seek work, has the hon. Gentleman recently been to the Team Valley trading estate, which, as he knows, is close to Blaydon, where in the past there has been a steady opening of new factories? There is a steady demand at present, as the management will tell him, for factories of 1,000 square feet and 500 square feet. Is he aware that in 1980 alone 145 new or reconditioned factories have been opened in the Northern region, providing 3,500 new jobs? That is the sort of thing that we want in the North-East, together with a bit of optimism.

Mr. Foster: I am aware of the situation. Those factories were put there as a result of the activities of the previous Government and by public investment. It is that investment that the Government are trying to cut back.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of factories on the Team Valley estate are on a three-day week or short-time working due to the policies of the Government?

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
I should like to be optimistic. Of course, new jobs are coming into being in various parts of the economy. That has always been so. However, in the North-East jobs are disappearing much more rapidly than they are being created.
Every commentator predicts that unemployment will increase to 3 million in the foreseeable future. About 40 per cent. of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. It is disgraceful that the coming generation, who deserve the best that we can give them, should be unemployed.
The Government offer the community enterprise programme. I do not denigrate the programme, but there are only 25,000 filled places in the programme compared with 400,000 long-term unemployed, and that number will increase to 600,000 shortly. The programme is completely inadequate. When will the Government give us the massive investment in training and retraining that we were promised at the general election? I warn the Secretary of State for Employment that, if he believes that leaving training entirely to industry and commerce will increase training, he is mistaken. Voluntarism is completely inadequate. What is required is a combination of the carrot and the stick. We need incentives and legislation to ensure that every company does the right sort of training. Only then will we get the response from industry and commerce that our young people deserve.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: What are the hon. Gentlemen's views about the record of the industrial training boards?

Mr. Foster: The industrial training boards have done a very respectable job. Their performance can, of course, be improved. It would be wrong to do away with them. I am worried about the Secretary of State's proposals to do away with them in certain respects.
I wish to deal with what the next Labour Government should be considering. Some form of incomes policy is absolutely essential. There could be a growing consensus

in the country for concerted action by the Government, the CBI and the TUC to reach agreement about the amount of money that there will be for distribution. It will not be long before the Government are forced in that direction. They have an incomes policy in disguise for the public sector. How long can we expect the public sector to be the only sector in which there is guidance for incomes?
The Secretary of State for Trade, who will be replying to the debate, will be only too aware of the growing force of protectionism throughout the world. We are inevitably being drawn towards further management of trade. I use that phrase instead of "import controls". We should be devoting time to devising ways to ensure that our exports increase more rapidly than our imports. If we erect barriers to imports without an expanding volume of imports, there will be retaliation from all quarters of the world. However, we should not dismiss the arguments for a greater amount of managed trade as completely irrelevant.
The Government should directly invest in State industries and induce much greater investment in the private sector. The idea that if we leave everything to the market investment will be forthcoming has been proved false in the past and will prove false again. When we see the extent of economic planning in Japan and Germany, the way in which their banking sectors completely support the strategy of central Government and the way that investment flows to the sectors where it is needed, we are forced to wish that we had similar systems.
We shall inevitably be drawn back to much greater economic planning, when every large company does its planning in a most professional way. It is nonsense to expect that economies such as ours cannot proceed in that way. The sooner we are done with the nonsense that we can leave it all to market forces, the better. The sooner we can get down to professional economic planning, the sooner prosperity will return. I warn the Government that my people in the North-East are longing for that day. Even those who voted Conservative in the general election had no conception that they were letting themselves in for the present policies. They had no idea that they were voting for 2½ million—perhaps 3 million—unemployed or for the present numbers who are on short-time working. If they were given the choice today, many of those who voted Conservative on 3 May would change their minds.

6 pm

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The decline in the competitiveness of our manufacturing industry has gone hand in hand with the increase in industrial planning. The recipes advocated by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) are no answer to the difficulties in which we now find ourselves.
I want to address myself to the problem of unemployment and how we consider it in the House. The charge made against hon. Members over the years is that we raise people's expectations. We have fed people on the idea that the Government can meet their expectations and lead them away from the recognition of economic reality. That is the opposite to what we should be trying to do—namely, to face people with economic reality.
I was not pleased to hear the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition this week that we should have unemployment brought back to the House of Commons so that we can deal with it here. I was not clear whether by "deal with it" the right hon. Gentleman meant that we should discuss and bewail it—unemployment is


distressingly high and we all share concern about it—or whether we should promote and consider serious remedies for unemployment. The debate so far has not been full of the constructive proposals about remedies for unemployment that we ought to be providing.
The reality is that in the capitalist system, in which we participate whether we like it or not, businesses grow and die. The answer by the extreme Left is that the capitalist system should be replaced. At least, that answer is consistent. But that is not the answer that most Opposition Members seek to provide. The answer that many Opposition Members seek to provide is that, because a business has been in existence for 300 years, that is sufficient reason for it to continue. That was the argument put forward by landlords at the turn of the century to prevent the House from making changes in the law relating to the ownership of land. I believe that everyone will agree that that is not a substantial argument.
The problems of unemployment are not satisfied by debates in which we moan about the figures, however distressing they are Indeed, in doing that we are insulting those who are unemployed in these difficult times.
The Labour Government made grants available to industries under the Industry Act in order artificially to keep them going for short extra periods, at the end of which they went out of business and people lost their jobs. The injection of public funds without regard to future profitability is no answer to the life of any business and it is no service to the employees. In particular, it is no service to those in northern cities which depend entirely on one or two industries.
We are right to be alarmed about the unemployment rate. However, I have yet to hear any analysis why unemployment should be higher in the North-East than in the South of England—for example, in my constituency in Dorset. It cannot be anything to do with the activities of the Government. I hope that no one will seek to suggest that it is. However, it might have something to do with the fact that in the South of England there is a greater variety of businesses, and those businesses have kept more up to date and been more prepared to innovate and be more competitive than some of the large, heavy manufacturing industries which are mainly concentrated in the North. In our present difficult economic circumstances, alternative employment is available to people in the South which is not available to people in the North.
We have a duty to people who work in industries which are no longer viable. Opposition Members were not slow to point out that we have a responsibility to the Third world. People who live and work in less developed countries want to manufacture for themselves. Indeed, in many areas they have proved that they are able to manufacture cheaper and just as efficiently as we can. We do no service to people who work in our industries to deny that painful truth without any time limit.
The more money we put into British Leyland and British Shipbuilders without regard to future profitability—which is the condition that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry adopts, and I am pleased that he does—the more we take away resources which might provide the basis for new industries and jobs for those who otherwise face unemployment.
We have a duty to analyse where we have been uncompetitive and where our industries have been subject

to overmanning. We also have a duty to help the low-paid. We hear much from Opposition Members about the plight of the low-paid, but I have yet to hear that the low-paid would be rewarded by a future with new industries and jobs in which they could be highly paid.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the development of in-work training. It is unfashionable to mention the word "lawyer", but the training of solicitors in articles is successfully carried out within the profession. Businesses know best what they want by way of qualified practitioners and they provide the necessary training. Anything that the Government can do to encourage the development of in-work training must be right and must help businesses to train young people for jobs.

Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his point later. I am about to conclude my remarks.
Unemployment is not a painless process, but we do less than justice to the unemployed if we pretend that by running industry the Government can get them out of the painful difficulties in which they find themselves.
I hope that contributions to the debate by Conservative, Members will be seen to be constructive because they do more to face the unemployed with reality and show that in the long term we shall be better able to reduce the distressing problem of unemployment.

Mr. Ray Powell: With reservations and a degree of anticipation, the nation waited for the message in the Gracious Speech, hoping, wishing and some of us praying that somehow, somewhere, we would find a glimmer of hope. But the messages, the warnings and the appeals by Opposition Members, well-respected past Tory Prime Ministers, the TUC, the CBI, small business men, the self-employed and people in all walks of life were not heeded. Alas, 20 November arrived and we had the same message—no change in the Government's fiscal and monetary policies, no U-turns, only further cuts.
The Gracious Speech holds nothing for the business man, the underprivileged or for bankrupt firms. It says nothing of the crisis facing the country. It barely refers to the plight of industry. It says nothing about the economic disaster into which the nation is plunging. There is not even a glimmer of hope that any of the warnings and appeals have been heeded.
Most tragic of all, the Gracious Speech holds no hope for the 2½ million who are out of work and no hope for the hundreds of thousands of them who are under 24 years of age. Are all those people skivers, shirkers and scroungers? That is what the Tories called them only a few months ago. Let me assure the Government that life is not comfortable for a couple living on £33 per week. Even if the rent is paid, that is no luxury living. But the Tory philosophy is "Give them a stretch on the dole and it will soon erode their self-respect, independence and self-discipline." That philosophy is even contained in the Gracious Speech.
When we returned from the other place to start the debate, I well remember the Prime Minister—I have written to inform her that I shall be referring to her—standing at the Dispatch Box looking like a blushing bride in all her finery. It was not her petticoat that was showing. It was her Dracula-like teeth. Within minutes, she spelt out


how she intended to suck the life blood from the weakest in society and how she would drive them further to the wall. That was spelt out by the whiz kid, with all her wealth of experience in the industrial and commercial world. One must give her credit for the fact that she worked behind the counter in her father's grocery shop. Unfortunately, she has failed to understand that business has changed. One does not get rich and fat today by weighing one's thumb with the bacon and the butter.
The Iron Lady, her armour getting a little rusty, her tongue tucked resolutely but firmly in her cheek, and without a sign of a blush, then stated openly, frankly and forcefully that her Government recognised the hardships of the unemployed. Within days, she showed what she meant by that. She decided to take away £80 from the unemployed couple, to introduce new rules to end supplementary benefit payments and to stop earnings-related unemployment pay. I could list many other measures to prove what she really meant, but suffice it to say that the 2½ million who are seeking work and a crust of bread have got the message loud and clear: the Government recognise their hardship, but they want to make it infinitely worse for them and their families and will ensure that as many more people as possible will be compelled to join them as soon as the right hon. Lady can get around to it.
The Government's policy reminds me of the story of the Good Samaritan. That poor person was destitute, down and out and in need of help. People turned their faces away from him, pretending not to see him. There were others, however, who pushed him further into the gutter and robbed him of the little he had. That poor person's experience may be equated with the way in which the Government today treat those in need of help. Instead of showing compassion, they are robbing the old-age pensioners, the sick, the invalids, those on social security and the many hundreds of thousands of our people who are living in poverty. Not only are the Government robbing the poor; day by day they are pushing more and more people into relative poverty through unemployment. The dole queue is getting longer and longer. Not since 1933, in the days of the great depression, have so many people been out of work.
It has been said that the Government are following not an economic but a political strategy, designed to undermine the trade union movement and to bring the workers to heel. It matters not to them that in the process they are also wrecking the industrial base of this country, large and small businesses alike. It is a vindictive and cruel policy. It will not work, because it is totally destructive in its ultimate aim. The nation is plummeting to an all-time low through the Government's lack of concern for others and their indifference to the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the poor. Every day, I become more convinced that the Prime Minister and her henchmen are hell bent on this persecution out of sheer, pleasurable spite.
Amid this doom and gloom, however, I see a ray of light. I hear rumbling and grumbling from the ranks on the Government Benches. I detect less spontaneous support for the right hon. Lady's utterings. I have not yet detected the "Thatcher man", or, rather, the "hatchet man", but I am sure that he is lurking there somewhere.
I refer again to the young unemployed. The Government's policies are having a disastrous effect on young people. The principal education careers officer for

the county of Mid-Glamorgan, of which my constituency is a part, remarked this week that the Government's recent package on social security benefits would deprive an estimated 5,000 Mid-Glamorgan teenagers per year the right to claim supplementary allowances immediately upon leaving school. Mid-Glamorgan has a crippling teenage unemployment rate. Last month there were 3,765 registered unemployed in the 16 to 18 age range and a further 3,300 teenagers on youth opportunities and community industry programmes. Only about a dozen vacancies are on offer through careers offices in the whole of the county. I therefore say to the Secretary of State that the mammoth task of the Manpower Services Commission will be even more difficult in Ogmore and Mid-Glamorgan.
The number of people out of work in the Principality, excluding school leavers, is now higher in percentage terms than in any other region in the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland. Every day, more redundancies and closures are announced. There is grave concern about the threat of further cutbacks in the coal and steel industries. Further slashing of employment in those industries would be disastrous for Wales. I warn the Government that Wales has already suffered too much. We shall not allow this incompetent Tory Administration to turn Wales into an industrial desert. Someone, somewhere, must stop this rot and put an end to this obscene insult to the working women and men of Britain.
In May 1979, unemployment was 1·3 million. That figure has been almost doubled in the past 18 months. Recently, the dole queue has been growing at the horrifying rate of 4,000 per day. Between 9 and 10 per cent. of our work force is now idle. What a waste of people and resources, and at what cost to the nation—£10 billion per year in lost production and a further £6 billion in lost tax revenue and in benefit payments. Is it any wonder that manufacturing output is falling? If one takes 400,000 jobs out of industry, does one expect it to produce more?
Investment is falling by 8 per cent., and it is predicted that it will fall by 10 per cent or more by the end of the year. That should be coupled with the escalation of company liquidations, which almost doubled in 1980. An average of 150 companies a week are going to the wall, and I have no doubt that some of them gave generously to Tory Party election funds. No wonder the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) called the Government's policies "catastrophic".
Unskilled manual workers, racial minorities and women are the hardest hit. But the major social disaster is the level of youth unemployment—a problem that cannot be left unresolved. It is a problem that will escalate social unrest and disorder. Already I see the danger signs in Wales, where unemployment is higher than anywhere in the country except Northern Ireland. In Wales, 12·4 per cent. of the working population is out of work.

Mr. Robert Parry: The point made by my hon. Friend about youth unemployment should be brought to the attention of the House because, of the 110,000 unemployed on Merseyside at present, nearly 30 per cent. are youngsters under 20 years of age. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he emphasised that point. The problem exists not


only on Merseyside and in Wales but throughout the country. It is time that the Government took notice of what we are saying and remedied this problem.
The Secretary of State earlier asked what the Opposition had to offer. The TUC has given them the remedy, and so have we. I should like to spell out some of the policies that the Government should adopt and quickly introduce. I now urge the Government to take them on board. First, they should now accept an overall expansion of the economy. Secondly, there should be an expansion of special employment and training measures. Thirdly, there should be a regeneration of industry by the use of funds from North Sea oil and the financial institutions through a new national investment bank.
Fourthly, there should be a positive role for the public sector. Fifthly, there should be managed trade, including temporary and selective import controls. Sixthly, there should be a more positive policy to help the worst affected regions of the country. Seventhly, they should recognise the fact that the trade union movement has an important and constructive role to play in solving the nation's problems. Eighthly, they should adopt a policy which attacks unemployment, not the unemployed. Ninthly, they should abandon the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit and re-establish the earnings-related supplement. Tenthly, there should be a further expansion of resources for the Manpower Services Commission.
Parliament depends on the will of the people to uphold democracy. Therefore, the people have a right to voice their objections. The cry from the people of the valleys and vales of Wales, the mountains of Scotland and throughout, the length and breadth of England and Northern Ireland is echoed by the cry from people of all political colours—from bosses, workers, industrialists, bankers, business men, builders and, in recent months, bankrupts. That cry is for moderation, common sense, flexibility, sanity and the preservation of democracy that we hold so dear to our hearts. Unless that cry is heard by the Prime Minister and the Government before it is too late, I fear that the ground swell of opinion from those without work, in fear of losing their jobs or who have spent half their lives learning skills only to find that they are no longer required will erupt into rebellion never before witnessed, and the calm and tranquillity of democracy as we now know it will never return.
It is our profound duty to spell out the dangerous situation into which we are plunging. Indeed, it is our responsibility to spell out to the Government that war with the workers in the 1980s is absolute and irresponsible madness. It will inevitably lead to destruction and defeat and ultimately, unless we are careful, to the end of the whole fabric of our democratic system. I implore the Government to change course now before it is too late.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Oppostition recently stated in the House that we shall fight the Government's policies in Parliament and in the towns and villages throughout the length and breadth of the country until there is a change of Government. He has the full backing of every Labour Member in that fight. He has the united and loyal support of the whole trade union movement, the co-operative movement, the old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the 2½million

unemployed. Indeed, he has a fair measure of support from the CBI. All of us will be in Liverpool on Saturday to give him that support.
If the Government are so adamant that their policies are right, why do they not put them to the country and seek a mandate, because they have not had a mandate for the policies which they are now pursuing?

Mr. Nigel Forman: I do not seek to emulate or follow the melancholy hyperbole of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to cap his 10-point plan for the revival of Britain. However, I share his deep-felt concern for the plight of the unemployed in future months and years, as do so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We Conservatives yield to no one in our concern about these matters. Surely, the argument between the two sides of the House is about the most appropriate and effective remedies, and it is to some of those matters that I wish to devote my brief remarks.
All Governments learn from hard experience. Of none is that more true than British Governments since the war. It was the Prime Minister who said in the debate on the Gracious Speech:
There are no magic or quick solutions. What this Government can and will do is to create the conditions in which, when the world economy recovers, the seemingly endless cycle of economic decline can be broken."—[Official Report, 20 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 33–4]
That is exactly what the objective should be for any sensible Government.
The House will have noticed that on a number of occasions recently the Government have had considerable success in their efforts to reduce inflation, but at a considerable transitional cost to the real economy and to the human casualties of that process of adjustment. While my right hon. Friend concentrated on the ways of alleviating and dealing with these transitional costs, I believe that the Government should also turn their attention—I hope and believe that they are doing so—to laying the basis for the economic recovery if and when it comes. Therefore, I strongly welcome those parts of the Gracious Speech the purposes of which are to lay the long-term basis for recovery.
The aspects which strike me as particularly positive are those which come under the heading of
the encouragement of new businesses",
especially the community enterprise programme, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week. I also draw his and the Government's attention to the fruitful experiments with what are called local enterprise trusts, about which I have already written to him. About 15 now exist and about another 15 are to come. These local enterprise trusts act as catalysts for real employment creation in all parts of the country and do so in a cost-effective way. I have supplied my right hon. Friend with details, and I shall not weary the House with them now. Suffice it to say that they are a good example of the cooperation between the public and private sectors.
I also welcome the increase of about £52 million in support for selective industrial development and industrial research and development. That must be a sensible way in which to lay the basis for the future growth and prosperity. That is something at which the French have proved good over the years. I have read the recently published Nora report on "The Computerisation of Society"—which is now available in an English translation for my right hon.
Friends to study—and I thought that it made good sense. It said that the best future is one in which society accepts the advantages of computerisation, its efficiency and its ability to—simplify life, while providing an impenetrably democratic climate to oppose its indiscretion. That is a somewhat rough English translation of a French thought, but the thought is right. We must back the long-term demands of industry, and we must do it early enough, so that when the economic recovery comes we are in a position to take advantage of the revival of world trade.
I also welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the industrial training boards and the Government's commitment to a revised programme of training in different aspects of industry. He is right to seek to withdraw Exchequer support from those training boards, but I hope that in placing emphasis on the voluntary approach he will not fall into the trap of missing the strategic sectors of the economy where we need that training in the national interest. Everything that is related to computers and information technology would obviously be a case in point. The real challenge in training and retraining is for us to take these steps, to make progress in time and to do enough to match our competitors in their larger efforts. One thinks of the Federal Republic of Germany, where there are about four of five times the number of apprenticeships that we manage to produce.
I also welcome the prospect of legislation on energy conservation. That, too, could be an example of investing now in order to reap greater rewards later. In contrast to some of the other employment measures that are bound to be more palliative, it will provide jobs that will last.
If there is a danger for the Government in the present situation, it is that we run the risk of pursuing financial and other policies which seem right for many macro-economic reasons but in such a way that people might think that we were to be the last adult generation in this country—with insufficient concern for the long-term future. The point that I am trying to make is that investment in people and technology is two sides of the same coin and two sides of our Conservative responsibility for the future.
It is also vital that such investment that takes place—even though it is not as great as that on the Continent—is used as efficiently and productively as possible. All too often we have found, through our system of industrial relations, that we do not make full use of existing investments, let alone provide adequate new investments. It is importamt that we get every possible degree of understanding in all aspects of British industry and commerce and that some of our attitudes are brought more quickly into line with conditions in the modern world. Some of the surveys about industrial attitudes show what can be done if management and all other employees wear roughly the same clothes, eat in the same canteen, clock on and off in the same way and generally submit themselves to comparable working conditions. That is something that management in this country could look at with advantage.
There is no doubt also that there will be an opportunity for this Government in the way they apply North Sea oil revenues, which will become increasingly available over the years. While I should not like to pre-empt those revenues, as and when they become more freely available—it is estimated that the revenues will amount to £15 billion by the mid-1980s—it is vitally important to

plough that capital benefit back into public infrastructure, into replacement sources of energy and to paying off some of the public debt that will still be round our necks at that time. We must get this country into such a position that when those resources are nearing depletion and exhaustion we can put our hands on our hearts and say that we built for the future.
I welcome the cut of 2 per cent, in minimum lending rate and the 6 per cent. public sector cash limit. I hope that the Government will recognise that we now have a sensible policy for incomes. It can only be common sense to take into consideration those employees who are directly or indirectly the responsibility of the Government, and, since that will entail a need to broaden the understanding of all sections of the working people, surely it is time to make further progress with the wider economic forum. The Conservative Party is committed to that in its election manifesto, and it gives us many opportunities to communicate with and understand all people in industry.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have said that the Government are involved in trying to modify attitudes. We should try to modify those attitudes on a permanent basis in such a way as to prevent the building up of any lingering hostility or resentment over the years. Distinguished former Conservative Prime Ministers in the 1940s and 1950s worked hard to put the Conservative Party on to a basis where it stretched out its appeal to the entire community. I do not want to see that good work wasted or evaporated by short-term policies now. That is why I stress that we must treat people as if they were intelligent adults. We must communicate openly with them, and we must try to be fair to them in our policies wherever possible. We must have a bias in favour of fairness, but we must not raise false expectations. If we approach matters in that way, and if we underline our concern for the long-term future, as well as for immediate financial and accounting considerations, we shall be worthy of the trust that was placed in us at the last election.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have attended a number of debates on employment over the years, and although this debate pertains to the Queen's Speech in many ways it follows a familiar theme.
Few hon. Members have referred to the main cause of unemployment, which is the long-term steady decline of our competitive position. In a trading world—Britain is one of the biggest trading nations of the world—our relative competitiveness is connected more with our employment position relative to other countries than any other factor. There are a number of aspects—the skill of management, the co-operation of the unions and the quality of the product. Whether they are good or bad, they have not changed very much in the last 12 or 18 months. Any change in competitiveness that has taken place during that period cannot be attributed to those factors. It may be argued that over the last decade and a half those areas have not been satisfactory, but that is our long-term deterioration. I do not believe that any of those three factors can be blamed for the problem as it exists today relative to 18 months ago.
The other major part of our competitiveness is controlled by wage rates and exchange rates. The real achievement of the present Government and the real reason why we are discussing the present disaster is that the Government have achieved something that no one has


managed to achieve previously—considerable increases in wage rates and considerable increases in the exchange rate at one and the same time. Added together, the two things have probably reduced our competitiveness relative to our overseas competitors by over 30 per cent.
The result is that there are about 2·1 million unemployed. Worse than that, a number are not registered as unemployed. Even more despairing than that, clearly unemployment is on a rising trend. Estimating the point to which it will rise is a game for a prophet. Clearly, it is on a rising trend with a long way to go.
During the period of the Lib-Lab pact, under the previous Government, I remember when unemployment fell a little—by about 100,000. I sometimes used to listen to hon. Members who referred to that 100,000 as if that were a total solution to the problem. However, unemployment was reduced during that period.
The real reason why that happened was that it was a period when the value of the pound was very low and a period when we had some semblance of an incomes policy. Until we return to those two criteria, there is little prospect of any major change.
Since the present Government were elected about 18 months ago, they have pursued a policy of high interest rates and tight public expenditure control. They have decided that OPEC decides the price of our oil in our country, and until recently they rejected any pay policy whatever. The predictions made by many 18 months ago have come to pass extremely accurately. The Government's sole hope was that a tight monetary policy would reduce wage demands. The hope was that such a policy would stop this two-part cycle which has greatly reduced our competitiveness.
To be fair to the Government, there is at least a teeny-weeny sign of success. British Leyland, Ford and a number of companies with which we are all familiar are looking forward to pay settlements somewhat lower than those made previously. But in my travels I notice no real change in attitudes in Britain. I believe that the moment the Government start to ease the top of the pressure cooker they will find a whole avalanche of pay claims which has been building up; people will demand pay rises to compensate them for the reduction in the standard of living that has taken place.
As a Liberal spokesman in this debate, I am prepared to tell people that a reduction in living standards will happen and that for at least half a decade that will be irretrievable if we want to get off the ludicrous inflation-unemployment merry-go-round. That is the reality. The Government should be more forthcoming in telling the British people the truth. I only wish that the official Opposition would tell people exactly the same. The realities of our economic position would not change that much whichever party was in power.
Our only hope of getting out of the present ludicrous situation is a broad-based pay, incomes and prices policy. I am a member of a party which has held that belief for a very long time. I believe that such a policy should be backed by mandatory controls, but clearly the best control of all would be one that was freely administered by the general good will of the people in our nation.
Let us suppose that a really draconian incomes policy were implemented today. The Government could immediately halve interest rates. There need be none of the

nonsense of 1 per cent, off or 2 per cent. off. They would have more control over the money supply with a good incomes policy and half the present interest rates than they have now with no incomes policy and ludicrously high interest rates.
I advocate a policy for the internal pricing of oil that has something to do with the actual cost of producing it, as opposed to the price lately decided by an OPEC meeting. Our internal energy pricing policy is ridiculous.
The fact that we would have a pay policy and, through that, that money supply would be under some control would allow the Government, in the short term—perhaps even in the medium term—to have a slight increase in public expenditure. I am not one who pretends that all our problems can be solved by endless public expenditure. However, if we had a tight pay policy and brought down interest rates, the Government could offer to make that a palatable package to the mass of the people by offering some increase in public expenditure.
I hope that such public expenditure would go on things which in the long term would help our economy—insulation, massive training schemes and so on. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Employment, I think that he is aware of just how much improvement is required in training. I would advocate massive increases of expenditure on training. It is not difficult to look around some of our State-owned enterprises to see where some money is required. An injection of capital into our national railway system would not go astray if we were looking for somewhere sensibly to improve our long-term facilities. Such a policy would at least enable a reversal of the employment trend that we nave seen for a long time, with only the merest hiccup of a reversal during booms in between the ever-increasing slumps.
There is another thing which the Government should investigate. People say that it is impossible, and perhaps it is. However, in Britain we have for many years pursued exchange control. The idea of the regulations was to keep money in Britain. Clearly, they had some success. They restricted the flow of exchange to a certain extent. Is it not possible, given the peculiar position of Britain being an industrial oil-rich country, to implement some sort of regulations the other way around to stop the open admission into Britain of short-term hot money which serves no useful purpose?

Dr. Hampson: What the hon. Gentleman has just said seems extraordinary. I hope that he will agree, as he has already argued at the start of his speech, that the value of the pound is too high. But, since we have an oil-based currency, if we had not removed exchange controls and allowed money to leave the country, what would be the level of the pound now? It would be way ahead of what it is already.

Mr Penhaligon: I apologise for not making myself clear. I did not criticise the removal of controls. I was wondering whether we could have a similar system the other way round to stop some of the hot money from coming into Britain. We maintained those regulations for years on the theory that we could stop money going out of Britain. Perhaps, because we are now an oil-rich nation, we should look into some similar regulations to stop the admission of hot money. It was maintained by this House for about 20 years that the exchange control regulations did something to stop money from leaving Britain.
Therefore, I do not see why some sort of regulations could not be produced which could stem the admission into our oil-rich country of hot money, which only pushes up the exchange rate to a ludicrous height. Therefore, I am not particularly arguing with the hon. Gentleman.
That is the general economic background. The Liberal Bench would offer, as the key to the way out of the misery in which we find ourselves, some form of draconian pay policy as a better alternative. I use the word "draconian" so as not to mislead people as to what we are talking about.
As for the effects of unemployment on individual sectors of our country, the one which still annoys me most is the effect on youth. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said that 40 per cent, of those unemployed were under the age of 25. We shall have to discuss that later, because the last time I loked at the figures the proportion was 50 per cent. However, it is about that percentage. Clearly, the age group below 25 is taking a great proportion of the burden.
Although YOPs, WEPs and WOPs—whichever one cares to mention—must be short-term palliatives, they cannot seriously be suggested by the Government or their predecessors as anything approaching a reasonable solution. At very best, they are a poor short-term option. Among some of my small employers, I discover that these programmes produce an attitude which I do not like. Some employers are looking to the State to provide them with—as they are referred to in Cornwall—"Some of your free boys to come and help me to do some work." There is an attitude that the employer should no longer employ people when they leave school but should wait until they have been unemployed for six months before he employs them free for a while, as he sees it, to help him with his enterprise. The longer such schemes remain an important part of our economy, the more widespread that attitude will become. We are not far from the day when the Government will become responsible for employing every person from the day of leaving school until the age of at least 18. The Government do not want to do that, but the long-term use of youth opportunity programmes and YEPs cannot lead to any other conclusion.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Trade is not sitting in his place, although he has been here for most of the debate. He represents the constituency of St. Ives, and I intend to make a regional point. Hon. Members constantly say that unemployment affects the North. They refer to the "prosperous South". I do not know how they describe the area where I live. They cannot include my area in the North. I fear that they are lumping my county into the South. However, unemployment in the far South-West is just as bad as that in any other area.
The Secretary of State for Trade is not a "wet". Indeed, I am told that he is so dry on these matters that he is surrounded by deliquescent salts in order to ensure that not a drop of water enters his thoughts. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman something about the area that he represents, in the far South-West. In Penzance male unemployment has reached 16·5 percent. In St. Ives it has reached 24·7 per cent, and in Helston 18·2 per cent. In the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, the largest source of income in the winter months is State benefit. Almost one-fifth of the male work force in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency of St. Ives is unemployed. Nevertheless, we are told that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue such nonsense further
The rest of the county is no better off. In Redruth, Camborne and Hayle male unemployment has reached 16 per cent. In Falmouth male unemployment represents 22·9 per cent. In Truro, which is part of my constituency, male unemployment is 12·5 per cent. In St. Austell, male unemployment represents 9 per cent.; in Newquay, 17 per cent.; Bodmin, 11 per cent.; Wadebridge, 17 per cent., and in Camelford unemployment has reached 16 per cent. The average figure for male unemployment in Cornwall is 15 per cent. Before winter ends, male unemployment will have reached 18 per cent. That is a disaster of mammoth proportions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the summer months?

Mr. Penhaligon: The situation is not much better in the summer months. Employment during the summer is not as good as one might imagine. The three-year rule is one cause of our problems. If a man is employed for three years and is regularly unemployed at a particular time of the year, he cannot receive unemployment benefit. A young man living in Cornwall with a wife and family knows that he can live only at the level of supplementary benefit if he works in the tourist industry and suffers the unemployment that that industry inevitably brings for two or three months a year. If that rule were removed, it might help my county.

Mr. John Evans: Are the appalling levels of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world caused by high and excessive wage claims by the workers whom he represents?

Mr. Penhaligon: Statistics show that the average wage in Cornwall is the lowest average wage in Britain. The high levels of unemployment are not caused by militant trade unionism. Not many trade unionists are militantly active on the shop floor. The unions are weak in Cornwall.
The main cause of Cornwall's unemployment is its popularity. Those who want to opt out to some extent find that it is more pleasant to be unemployed on the sands of Newquay than in the centre of Birmingham. There is some logic to that. Fortunately, a good number of those who opt out vote Liberal when they get to Cornwall. Nevertheless, population drift is a massive problem. My area still attracts substantial numbers of the unemployed.
The problem of unemployment extends far beyond the North of England. The only prosperous area in England lies within a 100-mile radius of London. Any area that is more than 100 miles from London is in economic trouble.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The unemployed who are on their way to the hon. Gentleman's constituency might care to stop in my constituency. We enjoy a profitable and progressive industry, namely, the areospace industry. It happens to make products that the rest of the world wants to buy. It does so at a competitive price and it delivers its goods on time. There is a desperate shortage of skilled engineers. If any unemployed people with engineering skills come the hon. Gentleman's way, perhaps he will ask them to stop off in my constituency to seek work there. The areospace industry desperately needs them.

Mr. Penhaligon: Many of my constituents regard Bristol as being in the extreme North. They think that Bristol is far away. Indeed, it is about 200 miles from Truro.
Before the last election, there was some indication that we could solve unemployment if every small business employed one extra person. I made a television broadcast with the Secretary of State for Trade. I pointed out that there was a fault in his argument. I also pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to believe that every male hairdresser should take on an extra employee. I could not understand whose hair that employee would cut. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman merely laughed it off. Since then, 9,000 small businesses have gone into liquidation. They cannot take on one extra employee, and he cannot laugh that off.
Last Monday, the Government increased the cost of the stamp for the self-employed. They intend to introduce a sickness scheme that will serve only to discourage the small employer from taking on anyone with any sign of ill health or with a bad medical record. I shall not go into the bureaucracy that small firms face. In Cornwall, which is a long way from London, 30 per cent, of the population are employed in small businesses or are self-employed. The Government have only made the situation worse.

Mr. Richard Needham: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said many things that were not consistent. I should like to question the point of having a statutory draconian incomes policy. He said that if such a policy were put into effect, it would allow any Government to halve interest rates tomorrow. A draconian incomes policy would not make the slightest difference to interest rates, becase they are determined by inflation and by the public sector borrowing requirement.
The hon. Gentleman could have argued that a draconian form of restraint on incomes in the private sector already exists because of the lack of demand. In the same way, there is a restraint on incomes in the public sector, becase the Government have imposed a 6 per cent, cash limit. The hon. Gentleman's statutory incomes policy will not get us very far. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to know that the Secretary of State's schemes are not WOPs and YEPs but YOPs and WEPs.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) reminded me of one of the loyal crew of the "Bounty" who finds that the captain is no longer in control of the ship and that the crew have taken to the dinghy. They shout to the seagulls at the top of their voices "Reflate, reflate. Spend, spend." They think that that is the only way out. Meanwhile, back on the "Bounty", Long John Silver has taken over and hoisted the Jolly Roger. He has told everyone that he is dismantling the guns and has informed the admiral that he will pull out of the fleet. He has told him that he intends to follow the orders of the shop stewards in the crew to sail in ever-tighter circles without letting anyone else on board.
I do not see how the right hon. Member for Chesterfield can suggest that reflation and spending are an option that any Government could consider now. He certainly did not consider it to be an option when he was Secretary of State for Industry at the time of the Chrysler affair.
If we took the advice of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to increase the public sector borrowing requirement to £18 billion and to cut 4 per cent. off interest rates, it would have a catastrophic effect on confidence in this country. That lack of confidence would

lead to a plunge in the value of the pound, which would inevitably result in renewed inflation and a dramatic increase in the prices of raw materials and so on to increased pay demands, which not even a statutory incomes policy could keep back. The hon. Member for Truro referred to dams and to pressures behind dams, but they build up faster and more effectively under statutory incomes policies than under any other policy.
The question is whether we want to go back to a policy of a declining pound. Is that the right way for our industry to compete? A low pound has meant low value added and low-quality goods competing, basically, with manufactured products from developing countries that are in a different position from Britain.
Let us consider the example of Germany, which has lived with a strengthening manufacturing base and a strengthening currency as it has produced more high-quality goods more effectively. Until recently, I thought that we could agree that inflation was the bogy which must be defeated. For the first time we have a chance, with an oil-backed currency and a tight monetary policy, to achieve a stability in the pound that has been unknown for years.
When we have a stable currency, internal inflation will be largely dependent on our ability to restrain pay settlements, which must be reflected in real increases in productivity. There is no other way for us to compete. The pound, backed by oil, will inevitably stay strong. The only answer for this country is for us to bargain within the limits of our ability to improve our output.

Mr. Craigen: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on the unemployment figure in Chippenham, because I find some of his remarks strangely at odds with the situation in my area?

Mr. Needham: The unemployment figure in Chippenham is 5·7 per cent. That is not from sheer chance but because it is in a part of the country which has managed to attract new high-technology industry. The labour force is renowned for its solidity, sense and intelligence, and the area will continue to benefit for as long as we have a stable and sensible currency that allows business men to plan ahead.
I support the Government's long-term economic policy of coming out of industries in which we can no longer compete and working towards the establishment of industries that will give us high value added.
The consequences of defeating inflation will inevitably mean high transitional unemployment as we move from an economy based on the old industrial revolution and its output to a post-industrial revolution economy that must be based on high value added and high technology.

Mr. John Evans: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with the utmost interest and I have taken on board his comments about moving to high technology and retaining a stable currency. However, is he aware that at Winsford, in the North-West, ICL has recently closed one of its most modern factories, with the loss of 5,000 jobs? When asked about the reason for the closure, the firm blamed the high level of the pound and high interest rates. That is a brand new industry. What price the strategy now?

Mr. Needham: High interest rates and high inflation are inevitably dangers to all industry and companies wherever they are located. There are bound to be effects


across the whole of industry. That is why the Government must cut inflation and public sector borrowing and maintain control of their monetary policy. Otherwise, interest rates cannot fall.
Regardless of depression or growth, employment in manufacturing will decline in this country for the foreseeable future. Changes in techniques, working and technology are bound to result in fewer people being employed in manufacturing. To demonstrate that fact, one has only to consider the position in agriculture 100 years ago when 30 or 40 per cent, of our people were employed on the land. Today, 1½per cent, of the working population produces 50 per cent, of our food. That decline will be mirrored in future in manufacturing industry, regardless of the level of output, because of the introduction of robotics and other methods of manufacture.
Provided that we have a stable currency, high value added and high technology, the profits made in service industries will be able to build a level of employment in those industries that cannot even be thought of at present.
I accept the overall strategy that the Government are pursuing, but there are two points of policy on which I wish to comment. It is crucial that in this transitional stage, when unemployment will inevitably rise, the Government have a national policy for ensuring that the unemployed suffer as little as possible.
I welcome the announcements on training made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, though I feel that any national training policy must take the 16-to-18-year-olds out of the collective bargaining arena. We must also set up some form of national training allowance, and I feel that there must be a role for the industrial training boards, as well as for the MSC, in determining standards. The highest priority for the Government must be to ensure that, as we come out of the recession, training and a long-term strategy for training are maintained. The Government are on the road, but they still have a long way to go.
My second point concerns benefits. I realise the difficulties facing the country and I do not advocate an increase in benefits, but the level of benefits must be protected. A married man with two children who is earning the average national wage of £124 a week receives only £45 or £50 a week after six months' unemployment. Out of that he has to meet all his obligations, including his mortgage, HP repayments and increased nationalised industry charges.
It is crucial that those who are unemployed through no fault of their own should be protected, along with then-wives and families—child benefit is involved here—so that they are able to get about to look for alternative jobs. It would be a tragedy if we learnt nothing from the 1930s and followed in the 1980s the same route as was followed in those days.
Another point I wish to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro. What will happen once the recession ends? It can be argued that the present recession is an effective form of incomes policy and that building up behind it will be a dam of demand for increased wages once things look slightly better. One can hardly say that the workers of British Leyland at Longbridge who have received wage increases in single figures for three years cans inevitably and for ever, be prepared to continue to

accept wage increases of that level when the golden bonus of redundancy beckons and when they feel that there will be no end to it.
There will be pressure building up. One of the key factors is to encourage ways of greater financial and employee participation. The two sides of industry have been at each other's necks for far too long. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will say that industry is doing this and getting on with it. I am not sure that that is right, although I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment might agree with him.
A recent article in The Times quoted a survey on employee communications by a consultancy agency presented to delegates at an Institute of Personnel Management conference which showed that
despite much activity in the last three years only 40 per cent, of the 131 organisations surveyed have a formal written policy. The absence of such a policy makes it difficult for companies to assess the effectiveness of their internal communications.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at remarks he made on occasion in Opposition about the introduction of a code of practice. I ask him to consider what is happening in Europe under the fifth directive laying down requirements to give working people basic information on redundancies, closures, new investment and so on.
On participation, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the alternatives. Many hon. Members have seen the recent "Horizon" programme on the Mondragon experience in Spain. We cannot, especially those of us on the Conservative Benches, continue to look at the capitalist system without change—a system of "we" and "they", capital on one side and workpeople on the other. Workpeople want to give more than just work. They want to give their lives and their capital. Most of them would want to do both if they could. We have not shown the flair and imagination that could have been achieved in the area of participation. If we cannot get people to understand the need for a common view and common purpose and unity, we will face a new pay explosion. Unemployment will have proved nothing except that it is a rather vicious form of incomes policy.
The Government face difficult times. They have to remember that they are dealing with people and not with numbers. Money and fear are not the incentives to which most people in Britain respond, nor are kind words. In these two areas, the Government can do more, should do more and will need to do more.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) would be described by the Prime Minister as soaking wet. The right hon. Lady has extremely sharp teeth and claws. Over the last 18 months, she has been sharpening the differences between "we" and "them", the division between North and South and the division between the poor and the wealthy. That explains why we are rapidly on the decline. It is idle to pretend that the problems that we face began at the last general election. It is futile to pretend that they will be solved by the time of the next election. They are too deep-rooted.
People outside the House, listening to some of the jargon spoken in these debates about the public sector borrowing requirement and public expenditure, simply ask much less sophisticated questions. They look around,


especially if they live in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, parts of London or even some of the rural depressed areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), and see slum houses, slum schools, and slum hospitals. They find waiting lists for hospitals and for houses. They match the demand for those services with the 2 million-plus unemployed who are desperately anxious to supply those hospitals, schools and houses. They ask themselves why the clever men in Westminster, with thousands of millions of pounds of wealth at their disposal, cannot match the demands for those services, which make so much difference to the quality of life for ordinary people, with the idle hands of the building trade workers, the engineers, the teachers and the nurses.
The hon. Member for Chippenham talks of wages being matched by productivity. I should like to tell him something. I am on my old hobby horse. I shall be going down to the South Coast this weekend to see my daughter, who is convalescing at St. Leonards. She is a simple soul like her dad. She will say "Dad, what were you talking about at the House of Commons?" I will say "Don't you know—the public sector borrowing requirement." I do not know what language she will use to me. It will not be all that polite. If I tell her that the hon. Member for Chippenham made a courageous speech, saying that we must match wage increases with productivity, she will ask how, as a nurse, she can increase her productivity in order to get an increased wage. These are the people who are being clobbered by the Government. The only people who have benefited in the last 18 months under this Government have been the bankers, the brewers, the Vesteys and those earning over £20,000 a year. There are no nurses, no teachers in that list. None of the people who provide the services that matter so much to our people have benefited.
Our people are those who depend so much on what is called the social wage. Public expenditure to them means a council house. It means a place in a decent school for their kid. It means a job in a decent factory at a decent living wage. All these things, ever since the Prime Minister took office, have been clobbered by the Government, and there is more on the way. It is idle for the Government to say that people must make more sacrifices and that it would be unpatriotic not to do so. That is rubbish. We will not accept it.

Mr. Needham: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that it is difficult to apply productivity to people like nurses. I am sure that he would agree that productivity and output in the areas that create wealth form the basis on which we can afford the important services provided by his daughter. What has been happening with the Vesteys has, I understand, been happening for 30 years. It has not just happened under this Government.

Mr. Hamilton: I accept the latter point. It is a capitalist system that produces the Vesteys. Nye Be van used to say many years ago that one of the great difficulties of a democratic system, subject to regular elections, was that no Government could pursue policies for long enough to prove that they were on the right course—or the wrong course. Those words apply equally to this Government.
In some areas of industrial manufacturing production, the productive record is second to none, yet those industries—ICI, the paper industry, the textile industry

and many other industries in which there has been massive investment in modern plants—are going to the wall as a result of this Government's narrow monetarist policies.
There seems to be no overall strategy. There are contradictions. Let me give one example of the underlying contradictions within Government policy. The Government now say that they are stopping altogether the building of council houses throughout the country. Local authorities are not being allowed to build. On the other hand, the Prime Minister says "If you can't get a job in South Wales or Scotland, move house."

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I must make my point, because I have others to make on the theme of this debate — unemployment and training.
It is no good telling a man "Change your place of work; if you cannot get a job in Glasgow, there is one in London" if there is no house and there is only inferior education available for his family. So there are many contradictions in the Government's policy.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) is not here, because he and I are members of the Public Accounts Committee. This country has abundant resources, but what matters is the way in which they are used in various areas, including education, housing and agriculture. The hon. Member spoke interestingly enough about misallocation of resources within the National Health Service. He said that there was overmanning in the Health Service and gave a global figure of £4 billion for salaries and wages. He implied that the figure was colossal and unreasonable and that it had expanded indefensibly over the past few years. Much of that was due to the reorganisation carried out by the previous Tory Government, but I shall let that pass.
The hon. Member went on to talk about the misallocation of resources in local authorities. Local authorities provide all kinds of services and jobs for the purpose of helping the old, the sick, the disabled and the underprivileged sections of the community. He talked about other services, but I want to concentrate on the Health Service, because it will help in the comparisons that I am making.
The Public Accounts Committee has been told that the Ministry of Defence is now producing a torpedo for use by the Navy and the Air Force. The present estimated cost of that one weapons system when in full production and use is £970 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A public scandal.

Mr. Hamilton: That is not yet working, and no one wants it. None of our allies is interested in it, and now we have discovered that our North American allies are producing at least as good a weapon at one- quarter of the cost.
The Secretary of State for Defence does not say to the Cabinet "We must cut our coat according to our cloth." Many Conservative Members do not say about defence what they are saying about education, unemployment or many other subjects, such as housing. What they say is that, whatever the straitened circumstances of the nation, we must continue to provide Sting Ray and another £10,000 million-worth of equipment for defence. Do the 2 million—and soon 3 million—unemployed that they seek to defend appreciate the spending of nearly £1,000 million on a weapons system that no one wants?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way, as I am on an important theme.
The Government keep prating on about no alternative policies being available, but what they mean is that no alternative policies are available that they are prepared to accept. But there are alternative proposals, and I shall give one or two of them.
The Secretary of State for Employment made his statement on Friday about the community environment proposals and so on. They are chickenfeed. The total cost, I think, was £750 million—an increase of £250 million. Let us compare the cost of the Sting Ray torpedo with the figures for all the training facilities that the Government are proposing. I do not know what the additional cost is today. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention any cost in his proposals today. Perhaps the cost was incorporated in the figures he gave on Friday. We shall have to wait and see.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the most civilised way for us to advance is to look at the scarce resources at our disposal and then evolve the strategy by which they can be harnessed in the national interest. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the most important of those resources are our human resources and our energy resources—coal, North Sea oil and gas. Those are the resources that we must harness in the national interest.
The most important investment that we can make is in our youngsters. It includes not only training after school but investment in nursery schools and in primary schools, secondary schools, technical colleges, polytechnics and universities. But those are the very areas which are the subject of ever-increasing and continuous cuts by this Government. It is another contradiction of policy.
It is no good expending additional resources on training youngsters who are unemployed after they leave school if they have received inadequate training at school as a result of freezing or reducing resources available to the education of children below the age of 16. Yet that is precisely what the Government are doing.
If the Government were on better terms with the trade unions, they would tell them, as I hope Labour will increasingly over the next few years, because we shall face this problem, that there must be a revolutionary change of attitude to apprentice training and all training beyond the age of 16—indeed, even before youngsters leave school. The old concept of a boy doing an apprenticeship and then being a craftsman is as outdated as the dodo, and restrictive practices right along the line must be stopped. We must get into the frame of mind where a man goes into work and is so equipped mentally and physically and is sufficiently flexible in his training as to be able to Exercise his mind to move from one job to another four or five times during his working life.
It was Shirley Williams who made a speech along these lines at Cambridge university a few weeks ago. She said that the oil and gas resources now available to us in the North Sea and the enormous revenues from them were such that there might well be a case for the Government to examine the need to channel an agreed proportion entirely into investment and training for the future, with a completely revamped national training scheme for our youngsters, because there lay the long-term salvation of the country.
Meanwhile, the short-term problem remains. Why do this Government hate and have such contempt for the poor, the sick, the lame, the disabled and the unemployed? That is the impression that they give, and that is why the increasing bitterness in the country is a frightening prospect. The divisions in the country are becoming more acute, and the fault for them lies at the feet of this Government. I fear that it may be too late now, but the sooner they change, the better for themselves and for the country.

Dr. Keith Hampson: In the course of my remarks, I shall be dealing with some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), because I think that he demonstrated to the House a great deal of good sense when he talked about training.
However, it really is not good enough for Opposition Members to rant on about the crisis of unemployment caused, in their eyes, by this Government and about the bitterness that this Government are creating. There are long-term and deep problems in the British economy which they had to face as well when they were in Government. I referred to them during the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), but let me make the figures clearer. It was under the present Leader of the Opposition in 1975 that unemployment among school leavers went over the 165,000 mark and under the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Fumess (Mr. Booth) that it went to 253,500.
I am sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House will begrudge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment successfully achieving such a large sum of money to put into the youth opportunities programme. It is a massive increase in that programme, and it is a much more interesting and valuable programme than we had before under the last Government. But the scale of the problem which the youth opportunities programme is trying to meet is very similar to that put by the last Government. The scale has not grown suddenly under the present Government.
I invite right hon. and hon. Members to consider the number of school leavers unemployed as a proportion of the 16-year-old age group. Under the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, in 1977, at the highest peak of unemployment for school leavers in August of that year, it was 28½per cent, of the age group. Under this Government, during the worst month this summer, it was 31 per cent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is why we introduced the scheme.

Dr. Hampson: This Government have put a massive extra injection of funds into the scheme, and, what is more, we never opposed the scheme. But, in addition, the nature of the scheme has been transformed. Thankfully, we are no longer talking about the old job creation programme, which involved such tasks as counting lamp posts in Barnsley and clearing Sunderland's beaches. We are now at least talking about constructive programmes which involve work experience and some training.
That is the positive side to which I turn, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the critical phrase
Long-term problems require long-term solutions.
I hope that we are not simply concerned with easing the hardship of the transitional problems of youth unemployment—or of longer-term employment, because I suspect that both relate directly to the nature of our training provision. Taking the longer-term unemployed, as against the school-leaving problem, I believe that unemployment in that category, too, is concentrated on those with fewer skills. That will become an even worse problem as the new technologies change the nature of our industry with ever-increasing pace. It will be more and more difficult for the unemployed, whether the school leavers or those in the older age group, to find jobs whenever any upturn takes place under any Government, simply because they have not the skills.
Our training arrangements have been at best patchy over all the years of the various Acts, and Labour Governments over the period are just as culpable as some Conservative Governments. We have not managed to direct the national effort and political will into training in the way that many of our industrial competitors around the world have done. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, even now, in the middle of this deep recession, it is obvious that the training has been misdirected, because there are many parts of the country and many industries where there are still shortages of skills.
We heard today of a major advance. It was most refreshing when my right hon. Friend announced the creation of the concept which many of us—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin)—have been pressing for many years, which is the notion of the "open tech". Increasingly, people will have to be adaptable, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central said. It is not a matter of learning at school or during a short apprenticeship for life. People must be adaptable, and the notion of recurrent education and training, with people having the opportunity to upgrade and improve their qualifications and retrain, is long overdue, and I believe that here we see the beginnings of it. I only hope that there is no divorce in the approach to this problem between the various Ministries. The Department of Employment must liaise with the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education, which already has made a major contribution to thinking in this area.
As for the problem of youth unemployment, it is not just that we have a tragedy. I believe that if we can begin to think about it positively there are some opportunities as well. We now have a very large sum of money being put into this age group. The Government's duty now is to pitch an ambitious goal for the end of the decade. They must not just concern themselves with work experience schemes of a few weeks, however much improved, for 450,000 young people. They must seek to provide an entire year involving a combination of work on the job and courses off the job. To adopt the phrase in one of the MSC's programmes, we need some preparation for working life, possibly better called a foundation year, for the entire school leaving age group—not for 450,000, but for all 600,000 school leavers. That in turn will ensure that the country is not saddled with the terrible dole queue figures which increase at certain times of the year, because those school leavers will not be included in them.
It is still an indictment, to which all Governments have contributed, that between 40 and 50 per cent, of those who

leave school enter jobs where there is little or no systematic further education or training. Obviously, they learn on the job, but there is nothing systematic. The corresponding figure in Germany is 6 per cent., and even in France it is 20 per cent. That is the measure of the task that we have to face.
The notion of providing a package for a year for school leavers should, in a sense, start before they leave school. The first stage of the process must be the attitudes in the school itself, because that is where a motivation for entering manufacturing industry can be generated. Attitudes there are crucially important. Therefore, in the final year at school there is a major task on the education side of the equation to ensure that pupils are not classroom-bound but have increasing experience in various occupations outside the classroom. They can learn outside the walls of the school.
It is also important that young people acquire the basic skills of numeracy, literacy and communication generally. In that respect, the Government took a major step forward by the announcement, which some of us believe was long overdue, that there should be a new examination of a specifically vocational nature for those who stay on in the "new sixth". Such an examination will mean that young people will not have to hang around and repeat CSE and O-level courses. If there are courses with vocational ends, young people will be able to leave with specific qualifications which employers will value.
The rub lies in the cost of making an offer of a year's opportunity to an entire age group. One must think in terms of a three-way provision. For industry we must have a carrot-and-stick approach. If we are to ensure that training places are available, the business man and the industrialist must be given an incentive. We cannot assume that industry is prepared to bear the entire cost of training. Most training in Britain has always been based on that assumption. Industry simply cannot take it, because it affects profitability.
A certain penalty ought to be involved. In terms of the levy for training boards, another condition could be built in. For instance, for every 40 employees a firm could be required to take one school leaver, with a certain levy exemption as an incentive. An employer might perhaps pay only half the regular national insurance contribution for a person employed under the scheme.
The Government can charge something because industry will have the labour and some productive effort. However, the productive effort will not be full-time. That is another part of the equation. An employer engaged in such a scheme should not have to face union basic wage rates. Increasingly, over the years, unions have negotiated for higher and higher juvenile rates. We should move to the German pattern under which both sides of industry agree that trainees are paid about half the going rate. We need a special rate for a special year for a special opportunity. That is the carrot-and-stick approach, with Government funding of the courses.
We do not need to think in terms of large grants for the young person. It is not necessary to start at £30 or £40 as we did with the job creation programme. We could pitch the rate at slightly over the supplementary benefit rate, for it is not only the money that counts but the attractiveness of the package. Not only will the package be attractive to the young person. It will become attractive to the employer who will increasingly look for recruits among young people who have been involved in such preparatory


schemes. Young people who do not take part will be aware that they will suffer in the job market and in terms of the opportunities available. Indirectly, a tremendous incentive will build up.
Obviously, there will be a cost. One cannot close one's eyes to training being expensive. My real doubt about today's announcement is whether the Government are being really logical in calling, as they rightly did, for a radical new approach to training. The Secretary of State used the phrase "training revolution", but the Government say that at the same time we should extend the voluntary arrangements with certain boards. The proposition is worthy of reconsideration. It does not fit logically into some of my right hon. Friend's earlier statements.
No successful economy anywhere leaves training to simple market forces. It is wrong to assume that business can cope on its own. By its nature, industry thinks in the short term. It is vulnerable to short-term pressures. Today, in the midst of the recession, the number of apprenticeships is falling. We have all said that we need more apprentices, because we must not have bottlenecks when the upturn arrives. However, we cannot expect business men to take on more apprentices in such times as these.
We need some mechanism or instrument to ensure that the process is guaranteed, that the industrialists take on the young people and that the foundation scheme works. To leave the mechanism to voluntary methods is to leave the system as it is. We have had many years of voluntary arrangements. In the early 1960s we talked about the need to change the character of apprenticeships and to put the emphasis in qualifications rather than time served. In 1978 an agreement was reached between the CBI and the TUC to start changing apprenticeships along those lines. That was a voluntary arrangement, but where are the results? The Government have a duty to intervene and not to leave the system to voluntary arrangements.
We drift while other countries such as Germany and France, and even Hong Kong and Japan, organise their training programmes coherently through State agencies. The Government should view the wider national interest. They should not assume—and I hope that they do not—that the future training needs of the nation are to be met by the collective efforts of individual companies. Employers tend to recruit and train for their "here and now" requirements, whereas the changing pace of technology makes it necessary to find people to train for future jobs and skills which are unforeseen or even unforeseeable. On the other hand, statutory requirements should not be too prescriptive.
I suspect that room for slimming down the Manpower Services Commission still exists. It would be better to do that and preserve the industrial training boards. I should prefer the MSC's regional offices to be reduced. Perhaps the headquarters operations—the training division—could be reduced. At all costs, we must ensure that we have some instrument such as the industrial training boards, because they are at the cutting edge, at the training front. Limited as the money is, it must be put as close to the point of training as possible. That is the importance of ITBs. The training boards have industrial training advisers. They are out and about in industry. They know the local business men and talk the language of industry. The bureaucracy of the MSC is less important.
Perhaps some restructuring of the training board system is necessary. Some boards could go and others merge, but

there must be some such instrument. In one sense we need more of them. Whole sectors of the new growth areas for jobs are not covered by them. Within four or five years there will be more white collar jobs than manual jobs, and yet huge sectors such as banking, insurance and information retrieval services do not have training boards. Training is essential in those areas.
In the training boards we have an instrument which can be the key co-ordinating arm at the level which matters. They can ensure the placement of young people and that standards are of the right kind. They can develop new initiatives. For years we have said that we must have more training. We cannot get away with exhortation. We must have the mechanism for implementation. We must recognise that training for the future growth and success of our nation requires spending money now. Training is not cheap, but one cannot avoid the conclusion that it is an investment in human ability and potential and a way of maximising that ability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today announced major steps to achieve that. He is correct in suggesting that a new training framework is long overdue. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider taking action along the lines that I have sketched today. Many of us await very keenly, the Green Paper that will spell out the Government's ideas.

Mr. John Evans: This has been a curious debate, particularly in respect of the contributions by Conservative Back Benchers. One after another they have begun by swearing allegiance to the Prime Minister and her policies and saying that they are the only solution to the country's problems, and they have spent 10 minutes kicking holes in those policies with considerable skill. The exception to that was the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). He did not seek to defend the Government's policies. He made an excellent speech to which we listened with interest. We know of his great interest in youth education and training, and we share and like his views. How his approach will go down with the Prime Minister is, of course, a matter for his political future.
The trouble with unemployment debates is that they invariably attract on the Government side the more caring, the moderate Tories. I do not like the offensive term "wet", and I leave that for the use of the Conservative Party's Right wing. The moderates are offended by our remarks on the Government's policies because they do not completely accept those policies and they therefore resent our vicious attacks upon them. I suspect that those moderates on the Conservative Benches are as concerned as we are about the fact that 2,162,874 people are registered as unemployed. The background to the rise in unemployment since May 1979 has been the Government's actions and economic policies. They cannot deny that if they seek credibility, particularly among those who suffer so grievously from unemployment.
We are all worried, too, about the degree of hidden unemployment, particularly among women and among students who cannot register for benefits. We are also concerned about the extent of short-time working. No fewer than 412,000 people are being supported by the Government's compensation scheme. We feel concern about how long that scheme will be continued. An additional 275,000 people are kept in employment or kept off the unemployment register by the Government's training and redeployment schemes.

Mr. O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend concede that the figure of 412,000 on short-time working would be more meaningful if we knew how many were working three days a week and how many one day a week? The people who are working one day a week are just one step away from the dole queue.

Mr. Evans: I take my hon. Friend's point. If a company is working a four-day week, it is suffering from 20 per cent, unemployment. If it is working one day a week, the unemployment rate in that company is 80 per cent.
The TUC has estimated that the true figure of unemployment—the number who would work if work were available—is greater than 3 million. The official statistics do not enable us to quantify and confirm that figure.
When unemployment was rising under the Labour Government, many of us then on the Government Benches were highly critical of our Administration on that score. One of the problems with which our Government wrestled was that the numbers in employment rose every year until 1979. However, since May last year the numbers in employment have dropped. In June 1979, the end of the period of the Labour Government, 22,825,000 people were in employment. In June this year, the latest date for which figures are available, those in employment numbered 22,409,000. That represents a drop of 416,000, which indicates the degree of hidden unemployment.
Another frightening aspect is the number of redundancies in manufacturing industry. Whatever divides us in this House, we are united over the need to build up a prosperous manufacturing sector. The wealth of our society is based upon that. The Manpower Services Commission labour market quarterly report for November 1980 states:
The decline in employment in manufacturing industry … continues to accelerate. Following the loss of 95,000 jobs in the first quarter of 1980, the rate increased to 140,000 in the second quarter and the latest figures show a drop of another 156,000 in just two months between June and August (seasonally adjusted figures), bringing the total fall in the 12 months to August to half a million. This is a much faster rate of contraction than in previous recessions.
It is against that background that one wonders at the mentality of the Government, especially when the Chancellor introduces, as he did on Monday, a mini-Budget which can only serve to deepen the recession. I do not seek to quarrel tonight about whether the Chancellor misled the House about the employer's national insurance surcharge. That matter will be settled on another occasion. However, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), as Chancellor, imposed in 1977 an additional 1½per cent, surcharge on employers, I was highly critical of him. I do not have the Hansard quotation before me, but I well recall my speech. The Conservatives divided the House on that issue, pointing out that the net effect of the increase would be to increase unemployment.
Now, the present Chancellor is increasing the surcharge; and he, too, will be hitting employment. Whenever employers are subjected to extra charges, they tend to ask their existing work force to work overtime rather than take on extra workers. I do not criticise them for that. Their motive is to reduce their national insurance bill. The Chancellor's statement on Monday will serve only to worsen that problem.
We hear a great deal from the Conservatives about the strength of sterling, and we now know that export orders

are falling. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State used to boast that all was well because export orders were holding up in manufacturing industry. It was self-evident that the deliveries were the result of orders that had been placed in the previous 18 months or two years. The evidence in all the financial journals and in the reports issued by the CBI and financial experts indicates clearly that export orders are falling rapidly.
There have been many references to energy prices. We know that those prices have had a cataclysmic effect on the paper industry. For example, 1,500 jobs have been lost at the Bowater factory on Merseyside. That will add to the general misery on Merseyside. The textile industry has been decimated. In a forecast that was issued recently, the textile unions estimate that 20,000 more jobs will disappear from the British textile industry in the next 12 months, many of them in the North-West.

Mr. Parry: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the problems facing the textile industry. Is he aware that the Courtaulds factory at Aintree on Merseyside is now under great threat?

Mr. Evans: I recognise what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that when we have the demonstration in Liverpool—it will be one of the largest that Britain has ever seen—many thousands of Merseyside workers and ex-workers will participate.
That leads me to the total disaster of the regional policies that we have suffered under this Government. One wonders whether the Secretary of State for Industry grasps the huge problem that he has created in the regions. I shall refer to the North-West, which, unfortunately, has had to bear the brunt of the cutback in the Government's expenditure on regional policies which was announced in July 1979, when about £230 million was cut from the regional policy programme.
It has been a wonderful exercise for the North-West! This month there have been an additional 10,706 declared redundant. We have reached the new all-time record of 311,952, which represents 10·9 per cent, of the employed population in the North-West. I probably do not need to remind the House that until comparatively recently the North-West was the cradle of employment in Great Britain. It had great engineering and manufacturing enterprises that supplied a tremendous amount of wealth to the country. Those enterprises are fast disappearing. There are now no fewer than 113,000 more unemployed in the North-West than there were 12 months ago.
Surely, no Conservative Member can suggest that the Government's economic policies have not been responsible for the cataclysmic growth of unemployment in the North-West and in other regions. The debate has been dominated—at least, from the Opposition Benches—by members of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or the Scottish National Party who represent the regions. They have all rightly drawn attention to the appalling problems that the regions are facing.
I sometimes wonder whether it would not have done some members of the Cabinet good in terms of their political education if, like me, they had suffered some periods of unemployment and had known what real unemployment meant. Perhaps they would have benefited from being in receipt only of unemployment benefit with a wife and children to support. It might have done them good to go after job after job in shipyards and ship repair


yards on Tyneside only to be told "There is no work today and there will not be any work this week." They should have heard those words and repeated that exercise week after week until finally a ship sailed up the Tyne and they managed to get a job. That might well have done them good. If they had gone through those experiences, they would understand the humiliation that results and the great depression that settles on individuals.
I tell the House that there will be a growth in mental illness. There will be more suicides. There will be increased crime because of increased unemployment. All the trends indicate that, unless the Government change their policies, there will be a considerable increase in unemployment, both registered and non-registered, in the coming year. Those on the Conservative Benches who recognise the fallacy of the Government's policies must recognise that they should do something to change the direction that the Government are taking.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) asked for constructive policies. I did not notice much that was constructive in his speech. We on the Opposition Benches have offered constructive advice to the Government since they were elected. However, the Government have totally rejected our policies and standards. It is no good asking us for constructive criticism. It is clear that the Government will not listen. It is for those on the Tory Benches to get constructive policies across or to shift the present holders of office.
Youth unemployment is an especially serious problem. I served an apprenticeship. I went into a shipyard when I was 14 years of age, which was normal for youngsters on Tyneside. I worked as a boy labourer, an office boy and a tea lad until I was 16 years of age. I then started an apprenticeship and remained an apprentice until I was 21. No one can convince me that there needs to be a revolutionary change in the apprenticeship pattern. It is not necessary to tell the trade unions of that. The problem lies not in creating a revolutionary change but in creating jobs for youngsters to fill.
I listened with interest to what the Secretary of State said about his new programme. He turned to the legislation that would allow training boards to be abolished. I accept that he did not say that they would all be abolished. Why does the right hon. Gentleman constantly attempt to placate the hard-liners on the Right wing of the Conservative Party? We have all read the comments that have appeared in the press recently from some of his hon. Friends who want to abolish not only the industrial training boards but the MSC. I ask all hon. Members to think again and to put pressure on the right hon. Gentleman not to follow that course.
No one suggests that there should not be a continuing review of the work capabilities of the training boards. We all accept that some of the boards are good while others are not. If there are boards that can be identified as poor, surely their standards should be improved so that they compare with the standards of the boards that are classified as the best. I suspect the real motives that lie behind the policy that the Secretary of State has set out. At some stage there will be a Cabinet reshuffle and there will be a new Secretary of State for Employment. That Secretary of State will have legislation in his hands that will allow him to abolish all the training boards.
It is obvious—the hon. Member for Ripon spelt this out much better than I can hope to do—that we cannot rely on voluntary service. It is nonsense to pretend that that

is possible. If training is required for our young people, it will have to be excellent training that is on a par with the best training in the world.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider again the many problems that lie in the training workshop programmes. All of those with which I am familiar are doing excellent work. One year is not sufficient. The instructors and the principals to whom I have spoken at the training workshops have said with force that during the last three of four weeks of a boy's or girl's 12-month period of training it is heartbreaking to hear the trainee beg morning after morning to be kept on in the workshop. The instructor cannot keep them on. When 12 months have passed, they go out of the door to rejoin the dole queue.
That is rather like leading the youngster to the promised land only to tell him when he thinks he has reached it that he is to be pitched out of the door on his face. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) is in his place. At one time my hon. Friend was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment. I put it to him on a number of occasions that we would face the situation when the State would have to accept responsibility for the training of all young people. I repeat that I cannot understand a system that is prepared to give academic youngsters substantial grants for further and higher education at colleges and universities but which says to working class youngsters "We are sorry, boys and girls. We think an awful lot about you, but your place is in the dole queue or, with a bit of luck, in a training workshop scheme." That is where the revolution in the training of youngsters has to come.
A ridiculous situation exists in local authorities. Because of Government policies, every local authority is increasing its charges for leisure facilities. In many cases the price is being increased beyond that which even those in work can pay. Facilities are being put completely beyond the reach of the unemployed. The necessity to train for leisure because of the advent of the new technology is frequently discussed. The problem is here now for thousands of young people. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to recognise that, with hundreds of thousands of youngsters with no work, with time on their hands and nothing to do with it and with local authority leisure facilities available, the two can be married together. Youngsters should be allowed to use the leisure facilities, if necessary at a reduced rate. It is better for them to enjoy football, tennis, squash or whatever it is than to be left to their own devices, to roam the streets, get into trouble and become vandals and thieves. Part of the problem of our growing vandalism and petty crime is due to the growth of youth unemployment.
The Government have been in office for 18 months. Their policy, style, proposals and economic strategy are in a complete shambles. That was proved by the fact that the Chancellor had to come to the House last Monday to attempt to explain away his sharp right turn. It is up to Conservative Members to make it clear to their Government that enough is enough. It is up to them to force their Front Bench to do a U-turn or elect a new leader, unless they wish to see social unrest.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am glad of the opportunity to take part in the debate. The problem of jobs has become a central one for our society. I believe that in the House we all agree that it is one that we have to solve.


It is the major cause for concern in my constituency. I doubt whether any hon. Member has not in the past year come face to face with the despair that the grim search for a job can bring.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) does no service to the House when he states that our Government have no concern for unemployment. They are deeply concerned. The compassion and worry on the Conservative Benches are equal to, if not greater than, those on the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman and the Opposition should realise that we do no service to the unemployed if we hide behind cosmetic solutions. Such solutions can bring only short-term relief. The British people want a Government who will pursue a real and long-term cure.
None of us can doubt that the main cause of unemployment is our economic failure. That has been mentioned many times. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newton accepted that. We have had a long relative economic decline, but the problem is that it is in danger of becoming absolute. Only if we reverse the threat of absolute decline will any Government begin to halt the growth in unemployment.
Our car industry has been much quoted as an example of the decline. Ten years ago we produced roughly the same number of cars as the French. In the past decade they have increased their production to 3 million but ours has declined to 1 million. We have to face the fact that if we were producing an extra 2 million cars now we should have many thousands of extra jobs. Therefore, productivity and our ability to compete lie at the very centre of our jobs problem. It must be the central task of any economic management to create the conditions in which people in this country can compete.
We have had one or two proposals to that end from the Opposition. Indeed, the Shadow Chancellor's solution is to boost public spending massively. As he said the other day, he is prepared this year to borrow £17 billion, and he would bring interest rates rushing down. That would help in the short term, but it would be at a terrible long-term cost. In two years, with such a policy inflation would be higher than at any time in our history. Business would not be able to cope with it, many businesses would be lost and the despair of unemployment would be even more widespread.
The Government must stick to their prime policy of reducing inflation. Inflation is certain to be in single figures next year. The real economic battle that we face is to ensure that in two years inflation comes down from about 9 per cent. to 5 per cent. or less. The danger that we face if we reflate too quickly now is that inflation will rise to 15 per cent. again, with all the problems that that entails.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that because the Shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to allow the PSBR to go up to £17 billion, that would inevitably result in increased inflation in two years. Does not the fact that the PSBR will be at £11½ billion imply, by the hon. Member's own argument, that we are in for a heavy dose of inflation again next year?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. That is the danger that I wanted to stress, and it is the very danger that the Shadow Chancellor was

leading us to by suggesting that we should increase public spending massively. That is why it is so important for the Chancellor to get back on course, bring down the rate of inflation and make certain that it stays down. Low inflation and the world that will then be emerging from recession can help to establish the essential conditions for lasting economic growth and the creation of more jobs.
Another encouraging aspect that has arisen from the tough times that our industries are undergoing is a real change in attitudes. Pay settlements are now realistic. Even more important, work methods have become much more flexible than they have been for decades. Therefore, the prospects for increased productivity will never have been better when we come out of the recession. The prospect for economic stability and the new realism that the Government have started to create, if adhered to, hold out better prospects in the long term for the British people than any other proposals.
However, while the Government are right in not sacrificing their long-term goals, we have to recognise that we have a short-term crisis. Technological change will bring further problems of unemployment. That is why I greatly welcome the measures that the Government have announced in the past few days. They are important. I congratulate the Ministers at the Department of Employment on the realism and energy that the measures show. They demonstrate that they are confronting the crisis. After all, nearly an extra £250 million is being put into unemployment measures. The total budget has been nearly doubled at a time when nearly all other areas of government are being cut back.
I do not wish to dwell on the details of individual schemes—we have already heard them many times—but I should like to isolate certain aspects. First, I welcome the fact that the youth unemployment problem has been firmly grasped by the expansion of the youth opportunities programme. It is helped now by being more rapid and comprehensive. It will lead to an extended period of training for the young.
Secondly, the community enterprise programme will extend help to the long-term unemployed of 18 years of age and over. This is a serious problem which we must tackle.
Thirdly, I welcome the extension by a further three months of the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. This has proved invaluable in my constituency. It has helped hard-pressed engineering businesses to hold their work forces together. It is vital to keep work forces together if we are to have productive ability when the recession ends and demand increases. In the long term, it is cheaper to hold together a good work force than to train a new one. I believe that in the new year the Government may have to consider extending this scheme in order to hold together their valuable work forces.
I am disappointed in only one aspect of the package—that the qualifying age for the job release scheme has not been reduced to 62. This scheme genuinely removes people from the unemployment register. I know that cash is tight, but I hope that the Government will bear this point in mind for the future.
Three aspects of the scheme deserve special mention. First, the scheme is imbued with a consistent and, indeed, fierce commitment to training. I am encouraged by this dedication because our hopes for economic regeneration rest on having people with sufficient skills.
Secondly, there is an awareness that the hopes and frustrations of the unemployed can be harnessed to community work to attack, for example, the physical decay in our cities. We should recognise that the unemployed can contribute to so many of the jobs which need to be done.
Thirdly, I welcome the determination to involve even more the voluntary sectors. I understand that these sectors are anxious to help. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the Manpower Services Commission is flexible when it is approached by firms in the private sector to consider schemes.
I believe that the Government are facing the grim consequences of unemployment. The package produced by my right hon. Friend during the past few days offers real help. At the same time, the Chancellor is right not to throw away the long-term struggle against inflation, because inflation is in the long term the greatest destroyer of jobs. The British people would have no truck with short-term relief if it involved running away from the toughness of a long-term and lasting solution.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am now convinced that the Tory Members do not have a clue as to what they are talking about. They do not understand poverty and unemployment because they have not experienced those problems. I have. I can remember my father being out of work, having a newspaper on the table as a cloth, having holes in my shoes in which I had to put cardboard and having clothes handed down from my older brother. I lived in poverty. Many Tory Members were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Is it any wonder that they do not understand poverty and unemployment?
In debates on unemployment, particularly at employment Question Time, I have heard Tory Members give voice to expressions such as "I believe", "hope", "if" and "a major step forward". As regards a major step forward, the situation gets worse, because on each occasion when figures are announced, as on the most recent occasion, more than 100,000 are added to the unemployed register. The problem will get worse.
I am concerned whether this Conservative Government are doing the job for which they were elected by the people of the nation. I get the message loud and clear in my constituency. It has now returned a Labour Member. It had a Conservative Member for two years, but they soon got rid of him.
Much has been said about youth unemployment, but it has been used as a cover-up for the general situation. I accuse the Secretary of State for Employment of using youth unemployment as a cover-up for the full situation.
I recently visited local courts. I was a magistrate before I became a Member of the House. I still have a contact in the courts—the clerk to the justices—and he furnished me with figures dealing with the appearances of youngsters under 17 in the juvenile court and of youngsters aged between 17 and 21 in the magistrates' courts. The figures for appearances in court have nearly doubled. I blame this problem on the Government's employment policy. Yet the Government talk of law and order. They are encouraging youngsters to get into trouble. Youngsters are being paid out of the national purse for doing nothing—for being bone idle.
Before the election, the Tory Party said that it would do something about malingerers. We have the machinery

available to deal with malingerers. For example, the Minister for Social Security introduced 1,000 storm-troopers to deal with malingerers. One Saturday morning, a chap literally dragged himself into my surgery, having left his invalid car outside on doble yellow lines. I asked "What is your problem?" He said "I had a serious accident eight years ago in the mining industry. I have had many medical examinations and exercises and seen all kinds of consultants, and they told me eight years ago that I would never work again." But, because of the policy introduced by the Minister for Social Security, that fellow was told to get a job. We said that genuine cases would be hit, and that is what is happening.
I maintain that we are wasting our most important national resource—the person who goes to work to create the wealth of the nation. Yet we have over 2 million unemployed and are seemingly on the way to 3 million unemployed. I believe that the Government are using unemployment as a weapon to create fear. I recall some of the comments which were made about the trade unions in the pre-election period. I am a member of a trade union. For many years I had a large shovel in my hand and grafted at the coal face. I did not have a silver spoon in my mouth. Therefore, I know what work is about and I know what unemployment and poverty are about. I believe that I served my apprenticeship in that regard.
The Government are using unemployment to create fear among the work force and to get control of the trade unions. I warn them that it will not work. The start will be made in Liverpool on Saturday. The people of this nation will rear up and the Government will not know what has hit them. There will be a bloodless revolution, and the Government will get the message loud and clear that the people are not prepared to accept policies of this kind, because they are totally unfair.
I should also like to refer to the firemen's dispute and the promise that was made to them with regard to their 18·8 per cent. increase. The Home Secretary had the audacity to move troops and green goddesses while the FBU and the employers were sitting around the table negotiating. How fair is that? One should expect trouble with the trade unions when a Government act in that fashion and try to stir up trouble.
I turn to the question of business. The Secretary of State for Trade is sitting on the Front Bench, and I hope that he is listening carefully. A firm in my constituency which makes bedroom furniture currently employs 40 people. The factory is located on a development site provided by the county council in Nottinghamshire. The owner took out a mortgage with the county council. Not many days ago, he was told that there was a clause in the mortgage under which he would be surcharged 2 per cent. unless he paid his mortgage regularly. But, because of the Government's policies, the customers to whom he sells his products cannot pay their bills promptly, and he is lumbered with a 2 per cent. surcharge by the county council.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment because this matter relates to his Department. The chap wants to expand and at the same time take on four school leavers. That is an incentive to four youngsters leaving school. But the right hon. Gentleman acted in the same way in which he has always acted. The sooner that we get rid of him, the better. He said that he could not do a thing,


yet Ministers, even the Prime Minister, stand at the Dispatch Box weeping buckets of tears. I once offered the right hon. Lady a handkerchief, but she refused it.
The point is that industry needs help. Ministers keep saying that it will all come right in the end. If we go on much longer, it will be too damned late and the nation's industrial base will be ruined. We shall all be out of work, including Members of Parliament who have cushy jobs and nice salaries. The Government have pushed people out of work and have forced them to claim benefit.
There may be grins on the faces of Conservative Members, but this is a serious matter. Our elderly people have made their contribution, yet the Government are robbing them blind. They have robbed them of two weeks' money. This is the first opportunity that I have had to mention that fact. I feel extremely hurt about what the Government have done to many people who cannot possibly help themselves, such as invalids who find it difficult to get about.
We talk about giving a certain percentage of disabled people a job. A lot of firms in my constituency, which I salute, fall over themselves to help the disabled find a job. At the Metal Box factory, 4½ per cent. of the work force is disabled. The point is that we are now reaching the stage where the disabled are being told "Sorry, but we cannot even take on the others. In fact, we are having to lay off because of Government policies."
At long last, the CBI is right, but it should have made its statement a long time ago. The Government must change their direction. There is a little manipulation now and again, and the words "a major step forward", "if and "hope" are used, but the situation grows worse. The whole House should support our amendment, and we might then move in the right direction.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The House will have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Those hon. Members who served with him in Committee on the Health Services Bill learnt to appreciate the sincerity of his views, even though some hon. Members thought that he sometimes overstated his case.
I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on youth unemployment. No doubt like many other hon. Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to increase the budget of the Manpower Services Commission and to deal with the problem of youth unemployment. I am glad that he has responded, and I welcome this change. I also welcome the increase because I and other hon. Members who have taken an interest in the matter know that many young people who were unable to find jobs and who took part in the youth schemes got jobs as a result. That in itself makes an expansion of the programme a measure that should be, and has been, supported.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans)—I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber now—pointed out that the high level of unemployment today was simply a consequence of the Government's policies. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that that is a simplification of the truth and a reflection of at least three things. The first is the failure of policy, perhaps by Governments of both parties in years past, whereby

Governments spent money that they did not have. That has now caught up with us. Secondly, the problems that we face today are a consequence of poor management over many years. I doubt whether there is any hon. Member who could stand up and say honestly that in his constituency people have not been laid off from firms that have been overmanned for years and that management has not taken steps at the appropriate time to trim the work force in order to keep competitive. That has been true in my constituency and I am sure that it is true throughout the country. Thirdly, and the consequences of which we know least about, is the intransigence and backward-looking attitude of the trade union movement. I speak as a member for 10 years of a trade union that is affiliated to the TUC. Essentially, the trade union movement wants to be negative rather than positive. It keeps saying "No" when occasionally the interests of its members would be better served if it were to say "Yes".

Mr. O'Neill: Some of the restrictive practices that the trade union movement has been jealous of preserving are a direct result of the experience of the movement in the 1930s. To return to those conditions would merely start again the resentment, bitterness and worry of trade union officials when they are confronted with requests to reduce manning levels in the years ahead.

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes. I certainly accept that in some cases that is true. I do not accept that in all cases it is true, just as I would not accept, as I have indicated, that all management is good and that all workers are bad. Both sides of the House must face that fact. There are restrictive practices which have grown out of bitter experience, but there is a backward-looking aspect to the trade union movement in Britain which one does not find in, for example, the United States, of which I have some small experience, where there is an attempt to be affirmative and positive to the benefit of the members of the unions. Therefore, it is not fair or true to say, as the hon. Member for Newton tried to say, that the consequences of Government policy are solely responsible.

Mr. Joseph Dean: As a lifelong trade unionist, twice in my life I have experienced the results of work shedding. How does the hon. Member explain that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been phased out under rationalisation programmes in my industry, engineering, by agreement between trade unions and the employers on the basis that the rationalisation would save the jobs that were left, but under the present Government even those jobs are now going west?

Dr. Mawhinney: The answer is simple. It is that the industry is still not competitive. Therefore, management and unions together must find other ways to combat the uncompetitiveness of British industry. That is the essence of the problem facing this country today.
I was interested in the Chancellor's proposal on Monday to increase the employee's contribution as a means of contributing to satisfying the needs of those who are not fortunate enough to be in work at present. As I understood it, he made it clear that this was a measure that was being produced in difficult circumstances, and it has an element of fairness about it which I think will appeal to the British people. I have refelcted upon the proposal and I hope that at some point the Chancellor will talk a little more about it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the employers?

Dr. Mawhinney: The public sector borrowing requirement has risen, as it must do at a time of recession, and I welcome the decision to relax the controls on the PSBR. When people stop receiving unemployment benefit at the end of 12 months, they move on to receiving supplementary benefit. As hon. Members know, these benefits are financed in different ways. Unemployment benefit is financed 85 per cent. by employers' and employees' contributions to the national insurance fund and by a 15 per cent. contribution by the Treasury to that fund, whereas supplementary benefit is financed entirely by taxation. Therefore, if people are receiving unemployment pay through the national insurance fund, the pressure on the PSBR is less than it would be if they were receiving supplementary benefit.
If the pressure is on to reduce the PSBR, as we know it is and which at least Conservative Members support, I wonder whether the Chancellor is contemplating an elongation of the period for which people will be eligible to receive unemployment pay—that is, extending the period beyond 12 months. I believe that this would help him in his determination to keep down the PSBR and, therefore, to reduce inflation, which in turn would help to stimulate the recovery of the economy out of the recession in which we find ourselves. I have not heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor reflect on these matters, and I should be interested to hear that.
I accept that the imposition of an extra £1, on average earnings, on the employee's contribution will have an effect on the "Why work?" syndrome. The hon. Member for Ashfield made a fair point when he said that, at a time when we have 2 million unemployed, our major concern should be the creation of productive jobs and not those who may, or may not, be malingering.
I pay tribute to my local MSC office in Peterborough. Despite the unqualified success of the Peterborough new town development and the millions of pounds that taxpayers have spent, unemployment in Peterborough stands at about the national average. I speak, therefore, with some knowledge of the needs of the young who cannot find a job. I pay tribute to those in my area who have worked so hard to produce such an effective organisation.
I visited the people at the MSC office some days ago. They have a waiting list of those whom they would like to place on schemes. As the Secretary of State has made more finance available, I hope that many young people will find a place on the schemes. If my memory serves me right, 70 per cent. of the young people in my area who went on MSC schemes have found jobs. I look forward to the day when the waiting list in Peterborough is reduced.
There is a need for much closer liaison between the MSC and the Department of Education and Science. Schools seem to produce young people—not a majority—who are not equipped to find jobs in the market place. Their inability to read, write or count to the required standard acts as a barrier. In many cases, school leavers have no idea of how to apply what they have learnt in school. I refer in particular to mathematics and its application on the shop floor. School leavers do not know what a thou or a millimetre is. They do not understand the importance in engineering of something being 3 millimetres and not 4 millimetres. They have no concept of how to apply what they have learnt in school.
Hon. Members have spoken about the importance of training and about the importance of application. The hon.
Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about the need to be adaptable. We should consider whether the teaching of mathematics could be adapted to enable young people to apply it to the shop floor.
My constituency is fortunate, because it has one of the best industrial units for the disabled in the country, namely, the Westcombe industrial unit. The Minister visited the unit and saw it in operation. It employs more than 50 disabled people. It operates profitably and competes in the market place in terms of price and quality. It does an excellent job. However, when the pressure is on, it is those such as the disabled who suffer.
I urge the Minister to consider establishing satellite disablement centres round the main industrial unit. There is a certain administrative cost in setting up and running an industrial unit. Disabled people have to travel some distance in their cars in order to work in such units. It would be much more sensible and acceptable if satellite units could be administered from the centre in a way that would cost less and that would maximise protection for the disabled against the pressures of our economic climate.
I welcome the Government's measures. They are a useful step forward. Like other hon. Members, I regret that so much human talent is not being used, but, despite what Labour Members say, I believe that the thrust of the Government's strategy is right and I shall continue to support it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: We have had an interesting debate, particularly in the light of the responses of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who has regularly nodded agreement with the comments of his hon. Friends and some of the remarks of my hon. Friends. Those comments have related to the need to increase the resources made available to the Department of Employment as against other Departments.
Perhaps we ought to feel lucky that we have the present Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment at the Department. They have had enough political clout in the Cabinet, against the power of other spending Ministers, to establish firmly in the minds of their colleages the need to increase the resources available to the Department of Employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) wisely said that the Government had shown inflexibility, but it should be noted that the only Department that has willingly accepted any element of flexibility over the past 15 months is the Department of Employment. No sooner were the Government elected than they set about the systematic destruction of the special measures programme constructed by the previous Labour Government. There have been reports, even up to today, of what took place at that time, when the efforts of the MSC were being undermined by instructions from the Department of Employment. People were being sacked as they were placed in the new schemes under the special projects programme. In the past four or five days we have seen a clear U-turn in the attitude of the Government towards the special measures programme.
Like most other hon. Members, during the recess I approached industrialists and trade unionists in order to establish the response of British industry to the monetarist programmes and strategies of the Government. From my conversations, three aspects come to mind.
The first is the complaint of British industry that the Government's monetarist strategy and its effect on exchange rates is destroying the opportunity for British manufacturing industry to export. Figures coming through show a dramatic turndown in the availability of business for British exporters. The economic effects of that reduction in order loads and capacity will not be felt for perhaps another 18 months or two years, and it may be that a Government of a different political complexion will have to deal with the damage inflicted by the present Government.
The second matter drawn to my attention was the fear of industry that its work force would be decimated as a result of the monetarist strategy. Industry complained of the prospect of having to make redundancies or introduce short-time working compensation scheme arrangements for workers. It was interesting that the Secretary of State for Employment said in his recent statement that the short-time working compensation scheme payments were to be reduced from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. Already, in my constituency there are cries from industrialists who say that firm agreements with trade unions on short-time working compensation scheme arrangements are now being undermined and that industrial relations in those factories are also being undermined by the policies of the Government.
Thirdly, they refer to the collapse of markets. The downturn in consumption at home and the permanent "sales" that are taking place in stores like the Army and Navy Stores in Victoria Street and throughout the retail trade in the United Kingdom are only a reflection of the deep problem that exists for British retailers and for the British manufacturers which supply those markets. Those were the areas of concern.
In reply, I pointed out that the Government, in the Queen's Speech, might be willing to introduce measures to ameliorate the position of those industrialists. That was not the case. Try as we might, when we looked at the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment we found nothing. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Taking into account the reduction in MLR and the inevitable increase in industrial rates, what is the net effect of this mini-Budget on manufacturing costs? Will they rise or fall?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in an interesting reply, said:
That sort of question raises a large number of implications. The most important feature—the one for which industry has expressed its pleasure through its spokesmen in the House—is the reduction in MLR."—[Official Report, 24 November 1980; Vol. 994, cc. 335–36.]
That shows a clear decision, obviously taken prior to coming to the Dispatch Box that day, not to tell the country what would be the real effect of the mini-Budget on manufacturing industry in this country and on the prospects of employment by manufacturing industry in the future. It was only the Chancellor himself who knew what the impact would be. He also had in his pocket the bombshell that was to explode only last night or this morning that there had not been a clear public reference to the more than £300 million additional charges to be imposed on manufacturing industry in the form of the employer's national insurance contribution. That has been the response of the Government in this mini-Budget.
There is much that I should like to say. Having spoken for seven minutes, I take the opportunity to make way for an hon. Member on the Conservative Benches. I hope that the next hon. Gentleman who speaks will show the same courtesy, speak shortly and allow time for some of my hon. Friends to speak in this highly important debate.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I agree with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I have been impressed with the sincerity of many of the remarks of Members on both sides, particularly Opposition Members. It is a pity sometimes that Opposition Members tend to wear their social conscience on their sleeve and do not follow the argument through to the remedy for the ills that they see in society. We cannot spend our way out of trouble. If we try to do so, we succeed only in spending our way deeper into trouble.
Nor can I blame the Opposition for the tenor of the speeches criticising the Government for the level of unemployment. All that I can say is that if, perchance, the Labour Party had won the general election in 1979 and the Conservative Party now formed the Opposition, the noise that we would be making would have been very much greater. That is not because Conservatives are by nature more noisy but simply because the policies that Labour Members advocated during the general election, if implemented, would have produced a level of inflation and, therefore, a level of unemployment very much worse than today.
We have heard comparisons with the 1930s. There is the major difference that the Welfare State now exists and provides some measure of help to cushion the catastrophic effect of unemployment on the individual and the family. That is an improvement, but there is still an important similarity with the 1930s which is often overlooked.
At that time the world was undergoing a major recession and struggling out of it, just as it is now. At that time British industry faced intense competition from overseas as old-fashioned industries were being forced to close in the face of new industrial methods, such as mass production. Today we see the same pressures on industry to modernise or face closure.

Mr O'Neill: Mr O'Neill rose—

Mr. Colvin: I have a time limit, so I cannot give way.
The shake-out of old-fashioned industries in the 1930s involved a frightening rise in the numbers of unemployed during the transition period until new industries were established. Today, alas, history is being repeated.
Had we dodged the issue in the 1930s and failed to make the changes required, painful though they were, we should not have had the creation of important new industries. Our motor industry, the synthetic chemicals industry, the electronics industry and the aircraft industry might not have come into being. Without the shake-out into those new industries, there might never have been the development of such products as radar and the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. In short, if industry had not undergone the trauma of the structural change of the 1930s we should probably have lost the war against Germany before the United States or the Soviet Union entered it as our ally.
Today, our war is economic but no less dangerous. Painful and accelerating structural change is being


experienced in industry and commerce and is already resulting in new industries, in a fitter economy, with more long-term secure jobs. We shall be more competitive as a nation and guarded against the economic catastrophe that will otherwise hit us when North Sea oil runs out at the end of the century.
I am delighted by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the major reforms proposed for our training system. In particular, I applaud his announcement about the "open tech". The structural changes being experienced today in industry will result in a great demand for new skills. Workers seeking new jobs will have to acquire new skills, and do it fast. Training courses will have to be available when and where required. For many workers who face redundancy, or who are just looking for a new and better job, suitable courses can be difficult to find.
There is a terrible tendency in this country to try to stay put, to cling to what one has. Figures recently published by the Carnegie Institute in the United States show that in that country workers have on average eight jobs and three careers during their lifetime. In this country the average number of jobs is two, with only one career.
There must be more dynamism in the economy. I think that we shall now achieve it and that the "open tech" concept will help to promote it. The "open tech" can help to overcome our problems by using the module system of course construction, together with the distance teaching method most successfully developed by the Open University. It will enable workers to study what they want, wherever and whenever it suits them best.
What is more, the "open tech" idea could be developed without any vast new investment in training facilities or bureaucratic organisation. In terms of facilities and people, the resources exist somewhere, often underutilised, in colleges, schools, universities, industry and commerce. They are there, and these resources, often paid for by the taxpayer, could yield a valuable extra dividend by being used more fully. The "open tech" could open doors to these facilities. It could provide training which was more flexible and job related, and it could do it with the minimum of Government involvement.
Despite the great potential of the "open tech", I should warn the House that it will be no panacea for all our ills. Trainees will have to be extremely highly motivated and dedicated, as has been seen with the experience of the Open University. Nor will it be of much help to the 19 and 20-year-olds. Again, it has been found with the Open University that there is a high degree of drop-out among students of that age group. If it is to come into its own, the "open tech" must be for adults seeking training and retraining. But it is measures such as the "open tech" which we need to help to deal with the skill shortage arising from the structural change taking place today. It is that which will ensure that Government supporters vote against the Opposition's amendment.
But there is a second reason. Although we have heard a lot of sound sense from Opposition Members, they broke a major promise following the 1974 election. In then-election manifesto, they undertook not to make promises that they could not keep. Then they promised that they would reject the policy of fighting inflation by throwing millions of people out of work. So much for the promises. In practice, we saw doubled dole queues, doubled inflation

and doubled taxes, and, if that was not enough, we saw the national debt, which had taken 300 years to reach £40 billion, doubled to £80 billion.
The Conservative Party never promised that it would, overnight, repair the damage which it inherited and get the economy back on course. We always said that the road to recovery was long and tough. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend are a major step in the right direction. They deserve the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I suppose that we should all welcome the special measures announced by the Secretary of State for Employment last Friday. However, I have the feeling that they are just more of the same. What worries me is the extent to which we are placing too much reliance on the youth opportunities programme to ease the unemployment problem among our young people.
On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues continued their mutilation of the United Kingdom's economy. No matter how much the Secretary of State for Employment may get to spend on special measures, it will be no more than a cosmetic applied to the wounds already inflicted by the Treasury.
There is a clear indication that the youth opportunities programme will run into difficulties after about a year. The Secretary of State for Employment gave way to me during his speech when I took the opportunity to emphasise that local authorities and other public bodies were very important as sponsoring employers. We all want the youth opportunities programme to succeed. But what is to happen to many of the youngsters involved in it after their time on schemes has been completed?
I was concerned during the debate about the extent to which we were having a Punch and Judy show between the public and private sectors. A job is a job whether the person concerned is employed in the public sector or the private sector. It is a great mistake on the part of many Government Back Benchers to assume that, because the public sector is weakened and debilitated, that necessarily benefits and strengthens the private sector. The two are interrelated, and the success of the one is conditional on the success of the other.
The changes proposed in the Queen's Speech for transferring to employers the resposibility for initial sick pay benefits will be highly detrimental to employment and to persons who are long-term unemployed. It will be difficult for the long-term unemployed to get a job if their health record is not good. The whole social security system is now under threat. In the post-war years we have operated on the basis that most people will contribute to the national insurance fund because they are in employment. Many people will perhaps never contribute to the fund, and we now expect a narrowing insured base to carry more unemployed people. That will pose enormous problems.
I wish that the Secretary of State for Employment had spelt out in more detail his proposals for training reforms. Legislation is promised. I hope that we do not return to the pre-1964 situation. It is ironic that for the third time in less than two decades a Conservative Government have the opportunity to make major reforms in the industrial


training system. They slipped up in 1973. I sincerely hope that they will not abandon the aspirations of Conservatives in the early 1960s.
Putting on to employers' shoulders the cost of early sick pay and, on top of that, responsibility for training will increase employment overheads. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) waxed eloquently about British capitalism. History will show that the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State for Industry have done more to undermine British capitalism than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ever did.

Mr. John Smith: I regret that I cannot say that this has been a balanced debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), Ogmore (Mr. Powell), Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Newton (Mr. Evans), Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) spoke of their anxiety about unemployment in their constituencies. On the Government side, with the exception of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), hon. Members spoke only of the training measures which the Secretary of State for Employment announced the other day. Not one Government Member defended the thrust of the Government's economic policy. Obviously, there was a hand-out particularly among the "wets" on the training measures, but there was no hand-out to defend the main thrust of the economic policy.
The situation was described correctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). He reminded the House of the appalling unemployment statistics. A total of 2,162,900 people are registered as unemployed. We have reached that devastating figure in enormous leaps in recent months. There was an increase of 89,000 in September this year, an increase of 108,000 in October and a staggering increase of 136,000 in the last month.
It is impossible to underestimate the misery and tragedy, collectively and individually, which the figures represent for ordinary people and ordinary families throughout the country. It is equally impossible to underestimate the lost wealth which the economy will suffer as a result of the excessively high levels of unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Industry spoke the other day about the last year of the Conservative Government having been a lost year. I think that he meant that in terms of lost objectives as stated at the election. Few of us would quarrel with that. However, it has also been a lost year for many other people—for 2 million of our citizens who are on the dole, a great many of them forced on to it during that period. There will be many lost years for many of them if the Government's policies continue as presently proposed.
We are told that unemployment was a problem under the Labour Government. I see the the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) nodding obligingly at that point. Under the last Labour Government, 1·3 million were unemployed. We thought that the figure was far too high, admittedly so, and bent all our efforts to seeking to reduce it. Of course, it was falling for a considerable period and it continued to fall for a few months after the

present Government took office. However, it took them only three or four months to get it moving up again, and we have seen it climb since to the present appalling level.
One would have thought that 2 million-plus was bad enough. However, the report of the Government Actuary, made on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, predicts a much higher level. In that interesting document he talks of levels of employment and inflation
I have been instructed to use for the purpose of the … estimates",
and then follow the figures. He says that the number of unemployed, excluding school leavers, during 1981–82 is estimated at 2,300,000. He is told to estimate by the Government that the number of school leavers out of work will be 200,000. So the Government have told the Government Actuary that an average of 2,500,000 will be unemployed in 1981–82. We know, however, that that is likely to be an underestimate. Last year he was told to estimate that the number of unemployed would by now have reached 1·7 million. The figure is 2·1 million. In addition, the Treasury recently leaked the likely level of unemployment as 2·8 million. Many respected commentators think that it is likely to reach 3 million.
Let us consider what that increase means. Even on the Government's admitted figure of 2·5 million, an extra 1·2 million will have been thrown out of work during the period of this Government. The Government will have been responsible for creating in addition as much unemployment as already existed when they took office in 1979. I hope, in the light of those facts, that we shall hear a little less from the Conservative Party about the levels of unemployment that obtained under Labour.
Let us also have an answer to the question put repeatedly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition: when will the unemployment levels come down to the level that existed under the last Labour Government, a level that the Conservatives criticised in the House week after week?
Unfortunately, the unemployment figures do not provide the only cause for concern. The temporary short-time working compensation scheme is disguising the true level of unemployment. A press note issued by the Department of Employment shows that in September this year 154,000 people were on short-time working compensation schemes. A month later, the number had leapt to 276,000. In November it leapt to 412,000. Almost 500,000 people are now on the scheme. We note that the Secretary of State for Employment announced that the scheme would be continued in a particular form but with Government funding reduced from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. That means that a lot of the schemes will collapse because the employers will not be able to find 50 per cent. of the cost instead of the 25 per cent. they paid originally. We shall have some rapid increases in unemployment as there is a movement out of that scheme on to the register.
Why have we had such a staggering increase in unemployment over such a short period? Is there some inevitability of fate? Is it some inescapable part of a gloomy destiny that no Government can do anything to avoid? Is it because of the world recession? To some extent, I suppose, the world recession has had an impact on Britain as it has on other countries. However, there is no other country in Western Europe that has had such a savage and deep recession moving into depression as the United Kingdom. That is perhaps because no other country


in Western Europe has chosen to adopt the foolish economic policies that the present Government have followed.
We have seen a savage decline in our manufacturing industry. As we all know—surely this is not a matter of dispute—that has been caused by high interest rates, the high external exchange rate of sterling and sweeping cuts in public expenditure. Every hon. Member who represents a constituency that is involved in manufacturing industry will have seen good companies as well as bad ones forced out of existence by that trinity of hostile factors.
We know that total industrial production since May 1979 has decreased by 11 per cent. On the Government's own estimates, it is likely to fall again next year. We know that since the Government came to power manufacturing output has fallen by 15 per cent. A few days ago, the Government estimated another 4 per cent. drop below the present level. That means that about a year from now we shall have had a 20 per cent. reduction since the Government took office. On the Government's own statistics, one-fifth of British manufacturing output will have been reduced by their economic policies. That has happened since they took power. What a splendid start for the regeneration of British industry that we were promised at the last election! We now know that one-fifth of British industry will have disappeared. That is the principal reason why we have over 2 million unemployed.
This has all been achieved in the name of the Government's monetary policy. They set themselves the target of an increase in the money supply of between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. Where is it now? It is about 20 per cent. It is so bad that the Government have abandoned the idea of having a target. They say "Let us leave the target until April 1981. It is hopelessly out of control now." The public sector borrowing requirement figures are also hopelessly out of control.
The Government have lost their way in respect of their economic policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer increasingly gives the impression of a barrister who has lost the instructions that he last received from his client. The right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly takes instructions from himself. That will put him in even greater difficulties as he staggers through the maze of his economic policy.
The Chancellor says that it is not all his fault. I understand that at a meeting last night of the Conservative economic committee he said that the problem was that the Government were boxed in by the pledges that the Conservative Party made during the last election. What a terrible dilemma! It should have thought rather more carefully before it made some of the pledges that are now boxing in the Chancellor.
What started out as a supposedly new economic departure in the policies of the United Kingdom—we were to become the laboratory for the monetarists' theories—is no more than the old deflation and depression of demand writ large. On Monday, the Chancellor took £1 billion out of public expenditure. He imposed an extra £1 billion in costs on employees by way of national insurance contributions. He devised a new tax on oil to raise another £1 billion.
The first two elements—the cut in public expenditure and the increase in national insurance contributions—are bound to depress demand. Phillips and Drew, the stockbrokers, reckon that there will be a drop in demand of between 1½ per cent. and 2 per cent. in the coming year.
It calculates that that will mean another 100,000 unemployed. That is the result of the measures announced by the Chancellor on Monday.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Employment to say that he has special training measures. We welcome the constructive steps that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. However, we bear in mind that a few days earlier the same Government announced an increase in unemployment of 100,000.
The minimum lending rate comes down by two points and we are told that that will help. The very same Chancellor forgot to tell us about the extra £300 million or so that will come from employers by way of increased national insurance contributions. The Secretary of State for Employment tried to bluster his way past that earlier today. He did not know that that intellectual sprite, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, had been telling us on the radio at lunchtime that perhaps the Chancellor should have been more prudent. Indeed, he should be more prudent. Many members of the Government should be more prudent about a number of things. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Employment would find it more prudent to listen to the radio occasionally when he knows that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is being interviewed.
We know that that £300 million robbed us of 1 per cent. of the value of the reduction in the MLR. We also know that manufacturing industry will have to pay another £400 million a year because it has to be responsible for the first eight days' of employees' sickness. Those two measures have robbed manufacturing industry of any advantage that it might have gained from the reduction in MLR.
The other reason why we have to go through the travail, toil and misery is that the Government say that their overriding concern is to bring down the rate of inflation. It is a great pity that the Chancellor did not consider that in his first Budget, when he doubled VAT and set us off on a new, soaring, vicious spiral of inflationary increases. All those thrown into unemployment because of the mistakes of the Government's policy must remember the lunacy of the increases. This is the most manifestly incompetent Government in economic management that we have seen in this country since the war. That is why we are returning to the echoes of pre-war Britain—to the deflationary policies that led to the disaster of the slump and the depression.
The other thing we were told was that, because of the new method of controlling inflation by mechanically controlling the amount of growth in the money supply, we should not have any need for that Socialist nonsense of an incomes policy; that would be taken care of by the operation of the new policies and the control of the money supply. We know the truth now. There is a crude, savage and undiscriminating wages policy being enforced on the public sector—the 6 per cent. policy announced recently by the right hon. Lady. One must say this about the right hon. Lady. She does not mind who gets caught in the course of her policies. With one swift slice of her savage axe she felled the credibility and integrity of the Home Secretary, who promised at the last election that the firemen's deal would be honoured by an incoming Conservative Government. She does not feel boxed in by the odd election pledge. Perhaps the Chancellor should not feel as boxed in as he obviously does. He, too, should just break a few pledges.
The Leader of the House appears to ask why I am looking at him. It is for an obvious reason. I can think of


no one in greater need of more prudence than the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is not preening himself to succeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hot money is on the Secretary of State for Trade. I do not know whether there will be a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whoever is Chancellor, I hope that he is a prudent man, because that is the policy that will have to be developed.
We are back to deflation. We are back to the old policies that were carried out in this country before the last war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw pointed out, many of us believe that behind the economic theory of monetarism there has lurked all along a political theory advanced by a certain section of the Cabinet, which is now emerging much more into the open. It is the crude and wicked policy of seeking to discipline working people by a heavy dose of unemployment. The Secretary of State for Employment may not agree, and I am sure that the Leader of the House does not agree either, but the "dries" in the Cabinet do agree. It is likely that the right hon. Lady has had that policy in her mind all along. Such a wicked and immoral concept, which will deeply divide the nation, socially and politically, is rightly doomed to ignominious failure. To use unemployment as a method of incomes policy is wrong in principle and we believe that it will fail.
Perhaps the most staggering irony is that we have gone through all the misery without even being able to control the money supply. It is hopelessly out of control, despite all the sacrifices. What kind of Alice in Wonderland policy is it to cut the PSBR in such a way as to increase unemployment benefits, which in turn increases the PSBR? What kind of monetary policy is it to cause an increase in borrowing to stave off the bankruptcies which the monetary policy induces in the first instance?
In their obsession with monetarism, the Government have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all the policies which have been urged by the CBI, the TUC and the Opposition and increasingly by Tory Members. They have been so obsessed that they have not seen the alternative policies of the use of North Sea oil revenues in the investment and re-equipment of British industry, in the management of our trade and the recovery of our industry and in the reflation rather than the repression of demand. The Government say that they believe in the introduction of technological change and the rebirth of regional policy, but such things have died under this Government. The Government have rejected all these ideas out of hand.
We all know that what this country needs above all else, and what every citizen passionately wishes for, is the recovery of the strength and effectiveness of our manufacturing industry. We have a number of historical handicaps. We have a history of industrial decline which it will be difficult to arrest. But we have—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would listen to some serious matters on this serious subject. However, we have one great advantage. The God-given advantage of North Sea oil and gas makes this country, apart from Norway, the only country in Western Europe to be self-sufficient in energy resources.
What are we using the North Sea oil revenues for? Since the Government came to power we have had, or will have had by next year, an extra one million unemployed. The total revenues from North Sea oil and gas are £4 billion. I am told on good authority that the cost to the

Government of one unemployed person is £4,600 a year. I get that from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who recently made a speech on these lines to a gathering of wets. The extra one million unemployed which the Government have caused since they came to office means that we spend £4·6 billion on unemployment benefit. What sense does it make in this day and age for all the resources of North Sea oil to be spent on unemployment benefit for the people who have become unemployed since the Government came to office?
We used to debate what we would do with North Sea oil revenues. Would we spend the revenues on industry, social services, education, training and the re-equipment of industry? We had a parade of priorities. All that has been pre-empted. The Government have no such dilemma. They have already committed the whole lot to the extra one million unemployed that they have created.
When historians look at what this Government have been responsible for, above all things it will stand out clearly that they wasted one of Britain's most important opportunities. North Sea oil gives us an economic weather window. It gives us the opportunity to re-equip our industry. It gives us an advantage over our competitors. We have not only North Sea oil and gas but enormous reserves of coal which will enable us to be self-sufficient in energy through to the beginning and, I hope, a substantial part of the next century. There must be an urgent change in the Government's policy. That wealth must be put to useful and sensible purposes. It should be used to reduce the numbers of unemployed and to put Britain back to work.
The Prime Minister says that those who are unemployed must move, but she does not know where they are to move—whether from Wales to the North-East, from the North-East to Scotland or from the North-East back to Wales again. The right hon. Lady has no idea where they should move. We say that it is time that she moved.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and many hon. Members devoted the major portion of their remarks to the most distressing symptom of this country's underlying problems—the unacceptably high level of unemployment.
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) did much the same. But, listening carefully to his speech, I confess that I did not hear anything which failed to represent measures which have been tried before and have failed to solve our underlying problems. Indeed, so far as I could understand, the methods that he would propose are those which have partially disguised, but have certainly extended, the underlying problem of this country's poor competitiveness over the past 10 years. At least, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that 1·3 million people were unemployed when the Labour Government left office.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The present Government have made it worse.

Mr. Nott: The number of unemployed doubled during the tenure of the Leader of the Opposition at the Department of Employment, and prices and the national debt doubled during the Labour Government's term of


office. It is clear that each recession in the 1960s and 1970s has led to higher unemployment than the one before. The next recession will be worse than this one, unless we can bring about a more effective cure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) sought to analyse the present situation in an interesting speech. I see my task in winding up the debate as that of examining some of the factors which cause our unemployment problems and of looking beyond the recession to see how the cycle of economic decline can be broken. That was the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who said that we must look beyond the present recession to see how we can arrest the cycle of economic decline from which our country has suffered for many years. In particular, I should like to examine the reality of our position in what is a dangerous and uncertain world.
I should like to refer to some of the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) gave a warm welcome to our new employment measures and rightly talked about the urgent need for an improvement in our industrial training. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) stressed the need for youth training and welcomed the new youth opportunities programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), among other things, stressed the need for better mathematical training. Indeed, speech after speech emphasised the importance of training.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) impressed an empty House, and certainly impressed me, by saying that he spoke to Professor Hayek on the telephone before breakfast this morning. From the hon. Gentleman's speech, it seemed to me that either the hon. Gentleman or the professor—because evidently they talked about the problem of the trade unions—had misunderstood the book "The Road to Serfdom". Later, the hon. Gentleman spoke of his talk with his noble Friend Lord McCarthy. That kind of familiarity in one day with the literati and the peerage would, I am sure, impress the hon. Gentleman on the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) had what I would describe as an attack of the silver spoons.

Dr. Bray: My talk with Professor Hayek was in the all-too-solid flesh. Has he updated his advice to the Prime Minister that the only way to tackle trade unions in this country is to remove all their legal immunities in a referendum, and will the Prime Minister follow that policy?

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman spoke to Professor Hayek. I did not do so. Therefore, we must await his description of Professor Hayek's views. The hon. Gentleman also gave us a lecture on monetary policy.
There is one thing that I find confusing about the Opposition. What are they criticising us for in relation to monetary policy? Are they saying that the Government's monetary policy is successful and is causing a recession, or are they saying that it is unsuccessful and has no relevance to the recession? What particular criticism are the Opposition levelling against the Government?
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North also talked about the problems of the high value of the pound. I can do no better than refer him to the remarks of his previous leader, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-

East (Mr. Callaghan), who covered that subject with great skill when his party was in Government. In July 1967 he said:
I come now to the question of devaluation…It is no way out…It is a flight from reality…advocacy of devaluation has become very modish among a number of theoretical economists…Unfortunately it has been picked up by a number of people who clamour for devaluation because they believe that it is a way of avoiding other harsh measures. They are deluding themselves. The logical purpose of devaluation is a reduction in the standard of life at home. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything."—[Official Report, 24 July 1967; Vol. 751, c. 99–100 ]
On 9 March 1978, when the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was Prime Minister, the former Member for Southampton, Test, Mr. Bryan Gould, who lost his seat at the last election, asked the then Prime Minister:
Has the Prime Minister seen today's reports of a warning by the Chairman of ICI of the damage done to Britih industry by the over-valued pound?
The Prime Minister answered, I think in a rather weary way:
I always listen, and I read the letters that he sends me. They are all very well informed, as well as being rather lengthy. When he becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, as no doubt he will, one day"—
as no doubt he will not one day, because he lost his seat at Test—
he will find that it is easier to talk about moving the pound up or down than it is to achieve it."—[ Official Report, 9 March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 1607.]
That was said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in 1978 in answer to criticisms from ICI that the high value of the pound was causing its business great difficulty.

Mr. Varley: What is ICI saying now?

Mr. Nott: ICI is saying the same now as it said then, and the Government are giving the same answer now as the then Government gave.
I refer now to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) in a debate on employment a few weeks ago. He captured, more graphically than anyone in that debate, and in this debate, too, the impact of factory closures on the loyalties, relationships and people in his traditionally industrial town. He expressed what every hon. Member feels. He said that the argument was not about the waste of unemployment but about the most effective remedies to cure the problem. He also said in his excellent and moving speech that the firms that were dead were gone for ever, and the firms that had traded for generations were lost for ever.
One thing needs to be said in the light of the current unhappy condition of many towns in the North of England. Receivership does not necessarily involve death. Often it is a prelude to rebirth and the resurrection of a business in a different form.
Last weekend I went to Yorkshire, and in the Leeds area I met the local manager of ICFC, the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, which is the principal institution in financing new business formation in this country. I have just received the figures from him about management buy-outs—that is, firms which go into receivership and are then started up again by the managers of the particular firms. In 1979–80 there were 49 such firms financed by ICFC. In the first six months of this year


there has been an increase in buy-outs of that kind, the management taking over a firm that had been shut down by its parent company, of 18 per cent.
In 1979–80, 309 new firms were started up. In the first six months of this year, the number had increased by nearly 30 per cent.

Mr. Walter Harrison: How many shut down?

Mr. Nott: The number of inquiries which ICFC is receiving at present for the formation of new businesses is running at a record level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) talked of the new factories opened in the Northern region in the last 12 months. I know myself that in the West Country at present there is an enormous potential demand for new industrial workshops. People are clamouring for them. The will is there. What is needed in this country is a resurgence of self-confidence in the nation's future.

Mr. John Smith: I am glad that that exists in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, because he will be aware that in St. Ives unemployment has now reached 24 per cent. It is time that something was done in his area, is it not?

Mr. Nott: I know rather more about St. Ives than the right hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] Unemployment in St. Ives was around that figure during most of the period of the Labour Government.
I should like to refer to one thing that was said in the debate the other day. In an interesting passage in an interesting speech, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said:
When I see steel workers…fighting to prevent their employers closing their factories, in my eyes they are defending our industrial heritage".—[Official Report,29October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 514.]
Certainly some of them feel that they are doing just that. No doubt, when the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North, who has just asked me a question about my constituency, spoke in 1971 against the previous Conservative Government's review of steel and spoke in favour of a then target for the BSC of 43 million tonnes by 1981, he did not predict that by 1981 the BSC's capacity would be down to 15 million tonnes, and the BSC is even now unable to sell the output from that capcaity. So, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about deploying the proceeds of North Sea oil, I ask him whether he believes that the sort of judgment which he made then for a capacity of 43 million tonnes for British Steel is the kind of judgment that we should put in charge of our affairs.
Does the Leader of the Opposition, with that unerring instinct of his for the ridiculous, when he chose the printing industry as his example of our industrial heritage, as he quoted from the pages of The Times, suggest that the printing unions in Fleet Street are fighting for our industrial heritage?
I really must say to right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that some of the examples that they choose are quite astonishing in current conditions.
I come to this country's overriding problems. With 30 per cent. of our gross national product earned abroad, our domestic living standards are crucially dependent on our capacity to hold, and ultimately to increase, our 9 per cent.

share of world trade. Very generally, over 7 million British jobs—one-third of our jobs—are dependent on markets all around the world. I regard it as my task to safeguard those jobs against those who would put them in peril in their sincere attempt to protect jobs elsewhere.
It is worth recalling that in the past few years world trade has grown twice as fast as the independent domestic economies that make it up. It is possible that with half our present population we would have the choice of opting out. However, this island has to import a great deal of what we need to feed ourselves, and we cannot conceivably maintain anything approaching our present standards of living without the benefit of trade abroad. We are condemned to suffer the discomforts and hazards of a world environment over which we have very little, if any, control.
It is true that import penetration of our markets has increased substantially, to about 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product. However, the proportion of exports in terms of our total sales has also increased at a fast rate and is approximately 30 per cent. Just as we export more, we import more. The experience of the United Kingdom is similar to that found elsewhere in the world. World trade involves countries in more inter-trading. It involves more exports and more imports, with the consequential adjustment problems that that involves.
I turn to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North.

Mr. O'Neill: Why is Britain's share of world trade falling, given that it was rising during the last months of the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Nott: Great Britain's share of trade is not falling. It has been maintained at about 9 per cent. of world trade for several years.
No one doubts that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North has ability. He is eloquent. As a good social democrat, he has the same instincts as a common or garden traffic warden. Like all good social democrats, he is good at issuing parking tickets but incapable of understanding the more fundamental traffic problems that cause the motorist difficulties. He did not say anything that dealt with the underlying problems that this country faces.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this country now possesses 40 per cent. of the energy resources of Europe. We have a tremendous, important and growing energy sector. Last year gross earnings from shipping, insurance, aviation, tourism, services and invisibles generally amounted to £22 billion. They comfortably exceeded the receipts of £18 billion from our total exports of manufactured goods.
We have a tremendous and growing service sector. Energy and services are the two sectors that the world longs to possess. Last month we had the largest trade surplus in our history. We also had a substantial trade surplus on our manufactured goods. At present, inflation in Britain is falling very rapidly. The Government set that as their overriding and prime objective.
The pound is high. People abroad buy the pound because they have confidence in the future of our country. The right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front Bench want the Government to create more money in order to sell our own currency. I repeat that the pound is high because people abroad have confidence in this country and are confident that the Government's policies will succeed.
There is not one hon. Member who does not deplore the current high level of unemployment. It is unacceptable to everyone. If one looks round the world, one finds an increasing challenge from the newly industrialised countries. Most of them already produce goods of a very high quality. More and more, the newly industrialised countries will challenge us, not just on the price of goods but on quality. Whatever the price of the pound may be, our industrial sector has to move up market and sell its products on non-price factors—quality, style and delivery. Unless we can do just that, there is no future for this country.
We have to trade with less developed countries. Last year we had a surplus of £2 billion on our trade in manufactures with those countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as a member of the Brandt commission, has underlined in the commission's report one of the great problems facing this country and the world. When the Opposition asked me about the multifibre arrangement—and we do our best for the textile industry—I must say to them that the less developed countries want trade, and we must recognise that unless trade with them is upheld we shall suffer as well.
Last year, and certainly in the first nine months of this year, we had in our trade with the world one of the largest surpluses in our history. Our trade with the developed world is going well and trade with the EEC is succeeding this year better than in any year since our entry. Looking around British industry today, one sees that there has never been so much co-operation and realism on the shop floor. The high pound, falling inflation and realism on the shop floor are occurring under the policies that the Government are pursuing.
Parliament would do itself a service if, instead of always being the instigator of gloom and doom, it did something to help to restore the self-confidence of the British people, because that is the most important single factor that the country needs. The continual and endless gloom and despondency that pervade the House and the pages of the British press do nothing to solve the underlying problems of competitiveness in this country.
The hon. Member for Ashfield described the Conservative Party as a party of privilege, but, of the candidates in the recent elections for the leadership of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is the son of a Privy Councillor and has two brothers in the House of Lords and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) had a father in the House of Lords. In addition, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was born a middle-class baby and has gone bananas about his upbringing ever since. He, too, was the son of a peer. If Labour Members think that the Conservative Party is the party of privilege, they ought to look at their own party.
The Government are tackling the underlying problens facing this country. When the recession passes, we shall have laid the foundation for a more efficient and a more incentive-based economy. The House should support the Government in the Division.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is a disgrace that a Minister should be allowed to make such a ridiculous contribution and then sit down at the end of a debate that was supposed to be about the 2 million-plus unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman and this rotten Tory Government are mainly responsible for the creation

of the unemployment in this country. Since this Government came to power, more than 10,000 people have been put out of work every week—

Mr. John Wakeham: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 314.

Division No. 1]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Adams, Allen
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
English, Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Field, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Fitch, Alan


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Fitt, Gerard


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Foster, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carmichael, Neil
Ginsburg, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Gourlay, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cohen, Stanley
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Craigen, J. M.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, J. S.
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Homewood, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hooley, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horam, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Howells, Geraint


Deakins, Eric
Huckfield, Les


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dobson, Frank
Janner, Hon Greville


Dormand, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas, Dick
John, Brynmor


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dubs, Alfred
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dunlop, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ryman, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sandelson, Neville


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheerman, Barry


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Mrs Renée


McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McKelvey, William
Silverman, Julius


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McNally, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


McTaggart, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Straw, Jack


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, H.(Colne V)


Morton, George
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


Ogden, Eric
White, Frank R.


O'Halloran, Michael
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


O'Neill, Martin
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitlock, William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Parker, John
Williams, Sir J.(W'ton)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Penhaligon, David
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Race, Reg
Wright, Sheila


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Sir Ronald


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Alison, Michael
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Blackburn, John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Body, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)





Bowden, Andrew
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gorst, John


Bradford, Rev R.
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brinton, Tim
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
Greenway, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grieve, Percy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, B.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brown, M.(Brigg and Scun)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Hon A.


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hastings, Stephen


Butcher, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
HeseKine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hooson, Tom


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Costain, Sir Albert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Denshore
Kimball, Marcus


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel


Eyre, Reginald
Lee, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Merchant, Spencer


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fe'nner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Major, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall Michael (Arundel)


Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Angus






Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shehton, William (Streatham)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard


Mellor, David
Shersby, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Smith, Dudley


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Speed, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Ian


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Murphy, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Myles, David
Stevens, Martin


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, J.(E Renfrewshire)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Peter


Nonmanton, Tom
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Nott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thompson, Donald


Parris, Matthew
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Sir Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, David


Porter, Barry
Wakeham, John


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wall, Patrick


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waller, Gary


Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watson, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Ross, Wm. (Londònderry)
Wolfson, Mark


Rossi, Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Royle, Sir Anthony



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Peter Morrison.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow

European Community (Common Fisheries Policy)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents 9336/80, 9336/80 corrigendum 1, 10688/80 on total allowable catches, 10090/80, 10687/80, 10722/80 on 1980 quota allocations, 9917/80 and COM (80) 724 on organisation of the market in fishery products, but regards as inadequate the quota allocations to the United Kingdom illustrated in these documents; reaffirms support for the Government's objective of a satisfactory settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy; and maintains the need to secure an overall share of fish for United Kingdom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters and the contribution made by United Kingdom waters to total European Community fish resources.
Because of the length of the motion and the number of figures to which it refers, I claim the distinction of being able to follow a debate such as that which has just ended without being requested by the Chair to sit down while hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly and courteously.
The words of the motion are important. In the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, we are approaching the stage when a number of issues of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and our fishing industry are about to be discussed, and it is important and right that they should be debated in the House.
I welcome tonight's debate because it gives me, as the Minister responsible for fisheries, the opportunity to outline the Government's approach to the negotiations. I hope that we shall be able to enter the negotiations in the Council of Ministers in the knowledge that we have the support and backing of the House in order to achieve proper objectives for the United Kingdom fishing industry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already reported to the House the various developments which took place in the Council of Ministers on 17 and 18 November. My right hon. Friend's report specifically referred to the allocation of quotas. The documents before us refer to the same matter, which is of crucial importance to us in the negotiations.
Equally important is the question of access, but that is not covered by the documents. I simply confirm yet again that the Government regard access as of equal importance to quotas for inclusion in the overall settlement if we are to agree to the common fisheries policy. Although, because of the documents, our debate must centre on quotas, we believe that the two issues must be taken together, and we have made that point clear to our colleagues in the Council of Ministers.
The documents refer to the total allowable catches for 1980. Hon. Members might fairly ask the relevance of these figures since 1980 has only one month to run. However, it is important to base our discussion on the 1980 quotas, because if a division of quotas is agreed for this year it is likely to remain for later years.
The documents amend to some extent Council regulation 754/80, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 29 January. It set out for the first time agreed total allowable catches—TACs—accepted by the Council of Ministers for the whole Community. In that sense it was a considerable step forward, not least because it was based


fundamentally on scientific advice then available, and that is the basis upon which we should discuss total allowable catches.
Document 9336/80 and its corrigendum No. 1 reflect revisions of that original document. They result from scientific assessment by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Therefore, the document before us has a scientific basis, one that the United Kingdom is prepared to accept. The consequence is a substantial increase in 1980 TACs for haddock and whiting, two particularly important stocks for United Kingdom fishermen in the North Sea and to the west of Scotland. We certainly welcome them and believe that they are properly based.
Document 10688/80, which also refers to TACs, reflects revised agreements with Norway and Sweden in respect of the Community's share of fish stocks with those countries. The increased Community share of 1980 TACs refers to North Sea stocks of cod, haddock and saithe. Again, the basis of the proposals in the document is sensible and right, and the measures are broadly acceptable to us.
I turn now to the 1980 quota allocations, which are the heart of the matter. We should not regard this set of figures as purely academic because it is based on 1980. If a quota allocation share-out is agreed on the basis of these figures, that share is one that we are likely to have to live with for a period. It is important that we get the allocation right.
We have had three such documents since July, when we last had a full debate on common fisheries policy generally and on quotas in particular. The figures now before us have been used by the Commission to illustrate the result of the various methods that were advanced by the Council of Foreign Ministers in May. I refer to the different measures that were set out in the May statement that bore on what the figures might be. The figures before us are merely illustrations. Having been involved in the Council of Ministers, I have no doubt that in the days and weeks to come there will be more illustrative figures before a conclusion is reached.
I emphasise that the figures are illustrative. I emphasise also that we are likely to see more figures produced from various sources before we come to a conclusion. However, we regard the figures as totally unsatisfactory as they bear on the interests of the United Kingdom. There was a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 17 and 18 November when these matters were discussed. I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that we made it clear at the meeting that we regarded the illustrative figures as unacceptable. More importantly, we made it clear that they do not fulfil the principles of the statement of the Council of Foreign Ministers in May.
The figures are currently under consideration by the presidency of the Council of Ministers. We expect that it will come forward with fresh proposals following the discussions that take place. The present figures will not do for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Douglas Jay: What will the position be if no agreement on a final package is reached by 31 December?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is a somewhat premature question.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is not.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is premature. If we were to concentrate all our attention on what we might have to do in the event of a sensible agreement not being reached, we would have a foolish series of priorities. When progress is being made, as it is now, in improving the figures, I prefer to concentrate on those areas rather than on a hypothetical future.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)rose—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend).

Mr. Townend: If no fisheries agreement is reached by 31 December, will my hon. Friend make it clear that that will not have any effect on the repayment due to Britain under the budget negotiated by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government have made it clear—I am happy to do so again—that the fishing issue must be settled on its own merits. We have made that clear to our colleagues in Europe. Even now, there are members of the fishing industry who would ask us to bring other issues into the settlement so that, according to their thinking, we shall get a better deal on fisheries.
The Government believe that the fisheries issue is important on its own. We therefore separated it from the other issues, and it is now necessary to continue negotiations on the issue on its own merits. That is the way that we started, the way that we have been proceeding and the way that we intend to continue until the matter is properly and correctly concluded.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is difficult for a Minister to choose between Hull and Grimsby. If hon. Members can settle the matter between themselves, I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Which hon. Member is the Minister giving way to?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The Minister said that the figures proposed will not do. Will he be kind enough to tell the House what figures will do?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Knowing the pressure that there will be to speak in the debate, the hon. Gentleman made his intervention, but I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will be able to enlarge on the matter later. The hon. Gentleman must consider me terribly naive, as he must have thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) naive. I have many quotations, which I shall be happy to use later. The right hon. Gentleman was coy about giving absolute figures of what we should aim for. We are talking about negotiations. That is the importance of the debate. The House should realise that fact. The hon. Gentleman's question seemed naive and was very appealing. I know the


hon. Gentleman. I should be delighted to answer the question if I felt it was proper to do so. He will realise that, if I did, I should not be doing the best service to the negotiating position of the United Kingdom and our fishing industry. The right hon. Member for Deptford took that view. I should hate to depart from his skills in dealing with the matter. I shall not be drawn tonight. We are determined, as I hope the right hon. Gentleman was determined, to get the best deal possible for the United Kingdom fisheries. The House can be absolutely assured that that is what my right hon. Friend and I shall be seeking to do.
Having been diverted, I return to the matter before us. What matters as far as quotas are concerned—and this is the critical stage at which negotiations are concentrated—are the methods that are being used by the Commission and the presidency of the Council to calculate quotas. I shall spell out the five principal objectives of the Government over quota allocations. I invite the views of hon. Members—and, I hope, their support—in following through those objectives to achieve the best possible deal.
The first objective is a 100 per cent. account of the losses that the United Kingdom industry has suffered in third country waters. That one matter which has underlain the negotiations and which has been acknowledged. The United Kingdom fishing industry, of all the fishing industries in the Community, has suffered most. We have the greatest right on our side. I hope that I shall have the support of the House in arguing for that objective.
Secondly, we shall seek improved methods of granting quota preferences to what are called the Hague areas in the United Kingdom—areas designated in agreement with the right hon. Member for Deptford in 1976—which are particularly dependent on fishing. Broadly, they apply not only to Scotland but to Northern Ireland and the North-East of England. We must have improved methods for calculating quota preferences for those areas.
Thirdly, we must seek to achieve a greater discount of industrial by-catches of species which normally we would regard as correct for human consumption from the historic fishing records of European nations. We have a particularly good record on fishing for species for human consumption. I say this not in the Scottish sense of being "Unco Guid" regarding our fishing record but in the sense that, when dealing with a scarce resource, the emphasis has to be on fishing for human consumption, not for industrial purposes. Therefore, we believe that what other countries have caught by way of by-catches must be discounted in assessing historic records. The Commission has already recognised that factor regarding industrial catches. In the past, a 25 per cent. by-catch of white fish for human consumption has been allowed. Now, only a 10 per cent. by-catch will be allowed. Therefore, we can mark up a certain degree of progress there.
Fourthly, it is essential that, before reaching a conclusion on quota allocations, we obtain quota allocation, albeit of a notional nature, for herring stocks. Fishing for herring is banned, with the exception of some local stocks. But herring fishing is of such importance to the United Kingdom that any ultimate discussion on quotas must include herring. However, it can only be on the basis of notional quotas, because the total allowable catch is nil at present.
Fifthly, one of our major objectives must be to ensure that agreed quotas have staying power. It was in this

respect that I mentioned the 1980 TACs becoming academic as the year comes to an end. However, it is important to ensure that what is agreed has staying power and is not modified. Whatever is agreed must be maintained for a number of years.
Those are the five basic objectives which the Government will seek to follow through in the negotiations. We have made useful progress in the discussions so far. The proposals from the Commission which we have stated are unacceptable to us are now under consideration by the presidency of the Council. The Council meeting of 10 days ago was suspended, not completed. At the next meeting in December we hope to make progress not only on quotas but on other issues.
I shold now like to refer to marketing. It is not necessary that agreement on the regulation on marketing should be decided at the same time. None the less, it is important to the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Therefore, it is right that we should consider that matter. It may well be part of the total package if agreement is reached on a common fisheries policy later this year.

Mr. Peter Fraser: My hon. Friend says that this matter is of importance. Does he not recognise that in the Scottish fishing industry it is now being increasingly recognised that a proper resolution of marketing agreements may be just as important as anything else that is taking place in the Brussels negotiations at present? Will he appreciate just how important this is for the Scottish fishing industry.?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend—my neighbour—because he always raises points of importance. He is absolutely right. The last year has shown that the market situation is of crucial importance to our fishing industry.
There are two issues in marketing. One is the issue before us tonight, which is a future regulation for the way in which the market is organised. Equally, there is the crucial issue of the annual review of official withdrawal prices. I think that that is the point which my hon. Friend has in mind. I have emphasised to the Commission and to the Council of Ministers that, if there is any delay in coining to a conclusion on a new marketing regulation, that must not be made an excuse for not reviewing properly the annual review of official withdrawal prices, the current level of which we regard as totally unrealistic. I shall continue to make that point to the Council of Ministers.
The document before us provides certain guidelines for review and it produces a number of new points with regard to future regulation. We have pressed for a proper review of marketing, we have emphasised to the Community the need to review the problem of imports which has affected the British fishing industry very much in the last year, and we have pressed for a better review of the role of producer organisations and a more flexible system of compensation.
These proposals raise a number of issues which cover some of the general points that I have mentioned, particularly in relation to the more general coverage of a marketing regulation. Here I refer to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), because I know that in that area there is concern about lobsters. Again, the control of imports in the longer term is important, and we take it into account. These and other matters will, we hope, be covered in the review of the marketing regulations.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Can he confirm that, if an agreement is not reached by the end of the year, there is no way in which the Community can hold up any of the money which has been negotiated and which is due to this country? If that is the case, there will be strong pressure on my hon. Friend to come to an agreement. Can he confirm that point, because it is an important issue to many Conservative Members?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend was truly interested in the British fishing industry, he would have listened to the reply that I gave earlier. I made it clear that this issue is one to be settled on its own merits. We are determined to settle this issue on its own merits and to work towards the objectives that I have mentioned.
I hope that as a result of the debate my right hon. Friends and I can go into the negotiations reinforced by the view of the House of Commons in order to achieve these objectives for this important sector of British industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the debate ends at 11.45 pm.

Mr. Roy Mason: We are sorry that the debate will be so short, thanks to the Minister's long speech and thanks to the fact that he was unnecessarily goaded and easily diverted.
We notice the motion and congratulate the Minister, or his politically minded advisers, on its wording. We note that it includes almost the whole of our amendment. We moved that amendment on 7 August 1980, and reference to it appears in column 889 of Hansard. It received the unanimous acclaim of the House. This is a real conversion. We are glad that our wording has been accepted and has become a motion. I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to not to divide the House. However, that will not prevent us from advising the Government on how to get a better deal in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy.
We are concerned about the number of different orders that have been laid. They have to be debated in one and a half hours. There is a batch of orders dealing with bilateral deals with third countries on total allowable catch quotas, which are based on up-to-date scientific estimates of fish stocks. Another batch causes the Government and the Opposition concern. It relates to fish stock share-out criteria. In addition, there are guidelines for the future marketing of fish products. Any of those batches could have taken up the time available. We shall have to reconsider how to deal in debate with so many Common Market orders.
As regards the future marketing of fish products, the official withdrawal prices have been too low for too long. There is great demand for a substantial increase. That is bound to be a component of the package. I shall echo what was said in the explanatory memoranda on orders 10688/80 and 10722/80. I quote:
The Government notes that, as previously, the Commission's quota proposals are based only on historic catches, third country losses and the special needs of local communities. The Government remains of the view that other factors are of relevance, including recognition of the proportion of fish in Member States' fishing limits found within the United Kingdom fishery limits. Furthermore the Government has drawn the Commission's attention to the inequitable results produced by the methods they have used to assess historic catches, to reflect

adequately United Kingdom losses of fishing in third country waters and to provide equitable quota preferences for those regions identified in the Hague declaration of 1978.
That paragraph is the crux not only of the negotiations but of this debate. This issue affects the whole fishing industry.
The Minister must constantly remind the Fisheries Council that 60 per cent. of the fish caught is caught in British waters—of the EEC's 200-mile limit—and that our historical performance, over a longer period than the Common Market recognises, shows our true fishing rights and catches. Therefore, we must press that point, as it is one of the keys to a successful agreement. The Minister knows that the orders have been laid at a time when crucial talks are taking place on the common fisheries policy. Despite what the Minister says, that deal will not be settled on its merits. It is a part of a failed Common Market budget deal.
The Government went for a broad balance of our budgetary deficit but were reduced to a shady compromise. Our fishing interests and the fishing industry are caught in the cleft stick of a tight timetable and pressures from intense Common Market fishing rivals. As a result, the industry and many Labour Members fear that the Minister will sell out, particularly if the final budget settlement depends on the results of the common fisheries policy.
Everyone recognises that during the past year the situation in our fishing ports has worsened considerably. There has been a drastic reduction in our deep-sea trawler fleet. Our docks and quaysides are run down. There have been increased costs for labour, rent, rates and transport, and even the White Fish Authority, which is not known for its forceful language, states that the industry and the fishermen are uttering a genuine cry of pain.
A survey of our major ports—Grimsby, Hull, North Shields, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and Lowestoft—will show that company-owned fleets are a shadow of their former selves, that skipper-owned vessels cannot pay their way and that many of them have been crippled beyond repair. The reasons are numerous, and the effect has been disastrous. Fishing opportunities have been severely cut back, and there have been high fuel costs without account being taken of the fuel subsidies of our competitors. There is also the high cost of borrowing, solely due to the Government's monetarist policies, and the frightening flood of cheap fish imports.
Throughout the industry, in the fleets, ports and boat yards, investment has greatly diminished and everyone fears that it may be too late for a revival. That is the sad story of the fishing industry in the first 18 months of Tory rule.
On total allowable catches, the share-out is one of the major foundations of a secure fishing industry. Once agreed, as the Minister of State said, the percentage will be the basis for many years to come.
We are not happy with the totally inadequate compensation proposed by the Commission for losses in third country waters. Neither are we happy—indeed, we are disturbed—with the scale of the industrial fishing by the Danes or with their by-catches. They have plundered our seas for too long. Control over their operations must be a necessity. As the Minister knows, it may well come to the crunch and the Danes may veto a deal, and he will then have to face up to them.
Our access arguments are well known. As yet, the fishing industry and Parliament have not weakened, and neither must the Government in these discussions. We still want the 12-mile exclusive coastal belt, with a dominant preference of up to 50 miles.
Regarding the share-out, there is already too much talk about the 31 per cent. offered and about the fact that the Minister will be satisfied with 35 per cent. I warn him that if that is so it will cause great concern. I know that we shall have to take into consideration the special types of fish and the grounds in which they can be caught. But we warn the Minister that he must dig in on the total allowable catch. There is still a lot to fight for. The crunch is near, and our fishermen are looking to him for salvation.
We all fear that in the end the Minister will present the fishing industry with a fait accompli—take it or leave it—knowing that if it disagrees with him many more months will elapse without a common fisheries policy agreement, and the industry will die. The fishermen fear that he will blackmail them into submission. That is a possibility, but it must not happen, otherwise he will incur the wrath of the industry and the wrath of this House. So far they have been standing together, but we are still worried about the eventual outcome.
We hope that the Minister succeeds and that he will manage to achieve the objectives that the industry and the House have unanimously given to him. He has a mandate, and we expect him to stick to it. This debate, short as it will be, is serving the purpose of firing a shot across the Minister's bows. If he fails, it does not matter whether he is sunk, but it matters if he sinks the fishing fleet of the United Kingdom. For that, he would never he forgiven.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I am surprised that a Member of the stature of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) should try to pretend that the problems of the fishing industry started in the past 18 months. He knows as well as any hon. Member that the problems date back to the cod war. Expressions such as "shady compromise" and "sell-out" just before the Minister goes into what may be the final battle for a common fisheries policy are not helpful. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman made clear that the Minister goes into battle with a united House behind him.
It is always difficult to debate a large mass of documents. One either adopts a broad approach, as did the Front Bench spokesmen, or one takes extracts from certain documents and underlines them. I propose to adopt the latter course.
Document 10090 was the first quota document that the British fishing industry received. It was based on historic catches, third country losses and special needs but, like the other documents, not on the proportion of EEC fish that can be caught in British waters—about 65 per cent. The document estimated the loss of third country waters and halved it. In other words, we would get only 50 per cent. compensation instead of 100 per cent. The document also reduces the United Kingdom catch of North Sea cod, haddock and whiting. However, I understand that that has now been settled satisfactorily.
Document 10687 shows a slight improvement in the United Kingdom allocation though still inadequate allowances for the proportion of fish in our waters and losses in historic waters.
The third and most important document, 10722, also shows a slight improvement in the United Kingdom quota, but there is an anomalous distribution in, for example, our allocation of Irish Sea cod and whiting. There is also a further wrong assessment of historic catches.
Taking the three documents together, the United Kingdom allocation has increased by 8,526 tons of cod equivalent. That shows that there have been gains in the long discussions in Brussels, but they are not enough.
I understand that in 1978 we had an offer, using cod equivalent, which was not taken up by the then Government, of 28·7 per cent. The documents seem to give us 25·3 per cent., but I understand that that figure has recently been increased. Can the Minister tell us the current offer in cod equivalent? I believe that it is just over 30 per cent.
I wish to use a local example to illustrate the problem of quotas. Fishermen off the Yorkshire coast have a basic catch of cod, haddock and whiting. A comparison of the catches of those species between 1978 and 1980 shows that cod has gone down by 3·5 per cent., haddock by 2 per cent. and whiting by 2·7 per cent.
The minimum requirement to keep the industry viable off the Yorkshire coast is estimated at 100,000 tons of cod—the 1980 proposal allows only 82,000 tons—70,000 tons of haddock—the proposal allows only 60,000 tons—and 60,000 tons of whiting—the proposal allows only 56,400 tons. Those figures indicate that the industry cannot be viable on these quotas, and, of course, that example can be repeated all round the coast. It shows that the allocation must be increased.
My hon. Friend the Minister has spelt out the justifications for an increase. The first is the loss of historic fishing rights. It is important to note that, of those losses, 99 per cent. are in cod equivalent and only 1 per cent. in other species. I also understand that an assessment from 1970 to 1980 would show that this country has caught 37 per cent. of all EEC fish. It is, therefore, clear that we need a 12-mile exclusive zone round our coast and the dominant allocation in the outer band.
I think that the House agrees that Danish industrial fishing has done harm to stocks and will continue to do so. There is no justification for the Danish allocation being much greater than ours. Fishing News on 21 November said that one possibility is
taking by-catches on industrial fish out of the present basis of calculation.
The Minister referred to this matter in his speech. I hope that a decision on it will be reached when the conference resumes in Brusseels.
On marketing, we have before us document 9917/80, which suggests certain improvements, including a flexible withdrawal system and a better reference price mechanism, and the main document, COM(80)724, which reviews the common organisation of marketing on the lines suggested in the previous document to which I have referred. This includes issues that will be beneficial to the European fishing industry as a whole. It, gives formation grants for producer organisations and changes in assessment of guide and reference prices. It gives a flexible system of compensation as opposed to the present flat rate. It gives assistance with private storage and allows for selective and progressive protection measures against third countries.
All those issues are good. I would suggest to my hon. Friend certain amendments that might be made to


regulation 100/76 which have been recommended by various sections of the fishing industry. First, compensation to producer organisation members should be fixed at a rate of not less than 90 per cent. of the withdrawal price. Secondly, the guide price should be based on a weighted average of prices at representative ports during the better of two fishing years. Thirdly, compensation should be equal to 95 per cent. of the difference between the standard value and withdrawal price. Fourthly, the vessels registered within the Community should carry a crew not less than 75 per cent. of whom have Community nation passports.
The proposals in the vast stack of documents before the House go in the right direction. The sooner a common fisheries policy is agreed, the better. I emphasise, however, that British fishermen must have a greater share than the documents suggest and European withdrawal prices must be considerably higher than they are today. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have done a good job in their various battles.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Grimsby): And the Prime Minister.

Mr. Wall: And the Prime Minister. All of them have done a good job. They are rectifying some of the things that went wrong in the past. They have not got a very good base on which to work. They are now going into the last battle. I hope that it can be shown tonight that they have a united House of Commons behind them.

Mr. James Johnson: I begin cheerfully with a famous comment about the wording of the text. I thought that the years had rolled back about a quarter of a century to the days of Butskellism, such is the consensus between the two sides. The words I want to commend are those in which the Government regard
as inadequate the quota allocations to the United Kingdom illustrated in these documents".
All hon. Members share that view. I commend to hon. Members a Select Committee document from the noble Lords which examines the question of what should be our share of the total allowable catch. It is whispered that we are being offered about 29 or 30 per cent. Their lordships come out bold and clear, as everyone does, for 45 per cent.
We have been asked to look at the tables. I do not think that they are correct. I understand that they have been amended and now include Western mackerel. I understand that at Luxembourg last week the President stepped in and increased the third country compensation, too. This is good for the United Kingdom and Germany—I think that the Minister is nodding assent—but I am told that all the calculations are in terms of cod equivalent.
I am not happy that the tables contain only seven species. Why do they not contain all the species? I am informed by knowledgeable people in the industry that if we keep to the seven species we get less than 30 per cent. of the total allowable catch, which has now been boosted to about 1,100,000 tonnes—for example, whiting gets 86 per cent. cod equivalent and mackerel gets 30 per cent. cod equivalent in the tables.
I also object to the fact that these are the Commission's figures, not ours, as we think they should be. Therefore, again the third party is not doing too much to help us.
It is most important that we take all species, or at least try to convince our so-called colleagues in the Nine that we should make up the tables on all the species. Why are we accepting seven? Is it with the connivance of Whitehall, or is it merely with the passive acceptance of the Minister and his civilian advisers? If we do not take all the species, we shall come out below 30 per cent.
I believe that the Secretary of State, with the help of his junior colleague, is now seeing the light and is getting down to dealing with the need for much more than 29, 30 or 31 per cent. We believe that we need at least 45 per cent., and the Lords may think that we need even more.
The $64,000 question is this: shall we get more? We can talk our heads off about these statistics. They are meaningless. The Minister said that they were only illustrative and could be changed. Of course, they can. The President changed them last week, I am told. Therefore, why do we not get on with lifting our share of the quotas?
The answer is that the French do not like it, to begin with, and are being difficult. But is it not a fact also that for us to secure a better quota the Danes must give up some of their share? Why do I say that and not tackle the French, whom I do not love at all, or even the Germans, who have quite a large quota? Of the total EEC 1,100,000 tonnes, the Danes get 26·4 per cent. I do not like the word "cheated", but it is a historic fact that they have always added industrial catches to their total catch. We object to that and do not think that it is fair. They also use small mesh and the like. We should take away the industrial catch figures, the by-catch figures.
Where are we to obtain dependable statistics that our partners will accept? All homage is paid to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea for the marvellous figures that we are receiving. They are the council's figures on which we build at the beginning. Why can we not use the ICES's figures for the industrial fishing and alter the share of the total allowable catch?
The EEC is finding the Danes intransigent and stubborn. This again is my understanding. From midnight, their Minister takes the place of a former colleague of ours who was a member of earlier Labour Administrations. It is the Dane now who will argue all night. I appreciate that this is important to the Danes. The Danish Government could be toppled if they did not get a decent share. When one goes to Jutland and sees those magnificent small fishing ports all along the coast, one understands the part that they play in the national economy.
If the Danes will not give, we have to ask ourselves how tough the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is. He is not in his place, and we understand why. There are suspicious people, even in this Chamber tonight, who say that the fish deal must be harnessed or hitched alongside the budget deal. I have noticed at Question Time that the Minister gets quite sensitive when he is charged with this by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), and he leaps to the Dispatch Box to clear himself. I will not say that he has a guilty conscience, but he is not the only joker in the pack. There is a gentleman named Gundelach.
Commissioner Gundelach is a good Dane, but is he a good European in these matters? He should be. Our friend Mr. Roy Jenkins is a good European, so why cannot the Dane be a good European and cast aside his clanlike


motives by saying that industrial fishing, although vital to the Danish economy, should not, in his opinion, be included in the total statistics?
It is said that we should be magnanimous and good Europeans for the sake of unity. But our Ministers must not give in. I say "No" to this proposal. The people in Hull whom I represent have no choice. They had to give in. They were cut out of Arctic waters by 200-mile limits. Since we are denied access to the Arctic, I do not see why we should give way in any sense in this matter of getting a decent quota.
Our men in Hull are on the dole. It is not impossible for our Ministers to negotiate with the Icelanders on access to Icelandic waters. It may not be impossible to get some of our people in Hull off the dole and on the deck fishing for cod, haddock, hake and halibut in Icelandic waters again.

Sir Walter Clegg: I could not entirely follow what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) was arguing about. He began by criticising the figures and, indeed, the Government. However, it is pointed out in the explanatory memorandum that the Government do not accept the basis of these figures and want them changed. I think that the hon. Gentleman had the answer to his question before he even asked it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State probably knows more about fishing than any other Fisheries Minister I have known. He has been in constant touch with my own port of Fleetwood—in fact, almost every week—to find out the situation. In the brief time available to me in this debate, perhaps I may give him a little ammunition to use when he goes to negotiate in Europe, because I think that he will negotiate there with honour.
Last Saturday, I met some members of the crew of one of the middle-water trawlers who had landed that week, under the aegis of the Transport and General Workers Union. Those men had landed in debt. They rely on poundage for their share of the catch, and they were as much as £50 in debt to their company when they came back after a trip. That is the stark position. It is due not only to fish being difficult to catch but to the achievement of an unsuitable price for the fish which has been caught—a problem which has bedevilled the industry throughout this year.
I shall give my hon. Friend some information to take to Europe about the imports from which we are suffering. The information was provided by the Transport and General Workers Union and shows the hard sell, especially in fish fillets. Ocean Traders of Boston Incorporated of Massachusetts is offering Newfoundland codfish. In its hard-sell letter, the company states:
There is no doubt that Canadian cod is the fish of the future. By 1985 Canada's TAC is expected to rise to £680,000, a huge increase requiring significant export markets.
It goes on to offer cod fillets, to be landed in Grimsby by motor vessel, not by fishing vessels, at prices with which our own fishermen cannot compete. They are being undercut.
My grievance against the Common Market and the current document is that it has been completely ineffective. Britain has been a lone voice crying out for an increase in the preference price. Ours is not the only fleet

in the Community which is suffering. The French have suffered. They blockaded their ports in the summer because of the pressures.
The document represents the start of the process. It will be a long time before conclusions are reached. It is almost implicit in the document that this is just a beginning. We cannot afford to wait. The ships are tied up now. We are still suffering imports of frozen cod fillets which are undermining our market. There is no reason why the reference prices should not go up under present regulations. The Community fails its members and its own future fishing industry if it does not act now to correct the market pressures.
I have said enough to give the Minister some ammunition to take to Europe so that he can convince the Community that he has the support of the House in any tough measures that he wants to take.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is clearly mistrust in the fishing industry.
Those are not my words but the words of the British Fishing Federation in its 14 November statement. The federation makes it clear that what we have been offered is less than that which we were offered three years ago. The federation states:
The cod equivalent' has enabled a gross deceit to be practised on the British people.
On 17 November Mr. David Aitchison, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Association, warned that the industry was getting a "raw deal" from the EEC. That reinforces the anxiety which we all feel.
On 18 November the Aberdeen Press and Journal reported:
Hopes sink over EEC fish negotiations.
On 20 November we heard an outstanding statement from the Minister of State, who said that "enormous progress" had been made in the negotiations. Tonight he softened that statement and said that "useful progress" had been made. I do not know what he has learnt since 20 November. The fishing industry does not share the view that "enormous progress" has been made. Mr. Robert Allan, the chief executive of the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, said:
I think it would be entirely true to say that one is pessimistic about the way in which things are going.
Who is right—the Minister or the industry? I believe that the industry is right. The Government resemble the man who starts to paint a floor near the door and gradually paints himself into a corner. The Government do not seem to realise that they have been inexorably driven into a corner. They are unwilling to face up to the crunch issue of a satisfactory settlement. The crunch is that they must choose between a proper and satisfactory settlement for the fishing industry and obtaining the rebate on the budget contribution.
It does not matter how often the Government repeat that they regard the two issues as being separate. Every time they make that statement, the French make it clear that if the agreement is not reached by 31 December we shall not get the rebate. The issue is simply this. Faced as they are with the choice of defending the fishing industry or getting their money back, the Government will go for the latter. I am satisfied that they will end up selling out the industry to get their rebate.
Whatever anyone else might say, the Minister must make it clear that he will take action to protect the


industry. He may argue that if he reveals now what he will do if no agreement is reached he will be giving away negotiating conditions. He will get the support of the House if he sticks by the fishing industry. But if he wants that support to continue he must tell us and the Common Market what he will do, and that must be to take solid unilateral action. I hope that he will make it clear that he will do so.
We heard various quotations from the Prime Minister during the general election campaign about how she would protect the industry. But she messed the agreement up when she allowed it to become embroiled with the budget negotiation. The sooner the Government realise that, the better. Unless the Minister speaks out strongly on the matter, he will be taken to the cleaners, as he has been up to now by the Common Market.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I totally disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that there has been a sell-out. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to fight and will come back with an agreement that will benefit the fishing industry. I shall seek to emulate the hon. Member in one respect by speaking briefly.
I congratulate the Government on the robust fight they have put up to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry. I am confident that when the negotiations reconvene they will continue that robust fight.
I am concerned at the way in which the figure of 35 per cent. is put forward as the amount of fish we are being offered under the agreement. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) quoted the 35 per cent. as though it were the figure. It is not. A lot of people in Europe are saying that it is, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to help us, and his own case, he must accept that it is not.
The 35 per cent. figure is a phoney figure, a confidence trick which our partners in the Community are trying to put across. That percentage is only of the seven species. Two key figures must be borne in mind. First, our waters contain 65 per cent. of all the fish in EEC waters. The other figure is the 45 per cent. that the fishermen have been pressing for. Their basis of calculation is completely different from that of the 35 per cent. There is a danger that if hon. Members and the media talk about an offer of 35 per cent. the public will say that the fishermen want 45 per cent. and that they obviously expect to get less, and somehow the two will come together and the former will elide the latter.
The value of the current offer that the EEC is making to us on the same basis that leads the fishermen to want 45 per cent. is only 26 per cent. That is all that we are being offered by the EEC at present. That is on the same basis as led us to claim 65 per cent. and leads the fishermen to want 45 per cent. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State is right to say that the current offer is unacceptable. Indeed, 35 per cent. on the old basis would probably be unacceptable.
I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to fight hard. If the EEC insists on making its percentage calculations on the present basis, we shall want something much more like 50 per cent. rather than 35 per cent. Whatever basis

is used, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue their robust fight within the Common Market to ensure a better and more just deal for our fishermen.

Mr. J. Grimond:: I hope that the House will allow me to express my deep regret at the sad death of the chairman of the Shetland Fishermen's Association in Brussels during the negotiations. He was a good friend and fisherman.
If the Minister asks for our support in telling our friends in the EEC that the quotas are unsatisfactory, he certainly has it. They are unsatisfactory. They are not nearly adequate for a country that has in its waters about 60 per cent. or more of the fish that the Common Market hopes to catch.
The Minister of State mentioned five issues of importance. I shall take up only two of them. First, there is the herring issue. It is important that we should have not only a notional but an actual allocation of herring. That is important for not only the heirng fishers in my constituency but for fish processors. The Minister knows that Messrs. Young is in grave danger of going out of business unless it gets an allocation
The second issue concerns the need for special areas. As I have often said, if fishing collapses on some of the islands in my constituency, there is no hinterland and it will mean evacuation. I understand that in other spheres the Government talk of new industries starting up and even of those which have been put into receivership making a new start. There will be no new start for the fishing villages in Scotland. Once the fishermen and their families—especially those concerned with inshore fishing—have left, it will be years and years before the industry can be started again, if that can ever be done.
A regional scheme has been drawn up by Orkney and Shetland. I trust that it will be approved by the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government are favourably disposed towards it.
That brings me to the issue of access, which is not directly the subject of the debate. It is clear that it is important in terms of regional schemes. I am nervous about the extent to which historic rights may be enforced, even within the 50-mile dominant preference. Above all, there is ultimately the issue of enforcement. What worries the fishermen greatly is whether quotas and access agreements will be enforced against the Europeans. There is widespread belief throughout the fishing industry that they will be funked. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in Brussels that when the quotas are agreed we hope that they will be kept.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I suppose that we all reach a point at which we nearly explode with indignation, frustration and our desire to see something happen that we want to see take place in the House. I did not expect that I would rise with such a feeling on fish—a subject which is of fundamental importance to my constituency—and feel that at that moment I had reached the point when my views about the Community had come close to breaking point.
I had to make up my mind carefully about whether to vote for the Community. I decided that it was right to do so. When I come to the nonsense of the three inches of paper that we are supposed to debate in an hour and a half


and I total the number of Members of the European Parliament, multiply by three and realise that the pile of paper should be higher than Big Ben, I begin to ask myself what the Community is about.
I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends every success in their negotiations in Brussels. I demand, as I am sure do all hon. Members, that they shall not give way on our strong feelings that our fish should not be taken away from us. Why is it that our fish should be up for grabs and our oil is never talked about?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is next.

Mr. Warren: I ask my hon. Friend, who has spoken so well tonight, to stand fast and not give way. The calculation of quotas is nonsense. We have inches of paper before us. In them it is said of plaice in the English Channel that the French are to be allowed 750 tonnes and we are to be allowed 470 tonnes. Where will the French get them from? They will get them from the English side of the Channel. It is nonsense. We must stop this, and stop it in the lifetime of this Parliament.
If it is asked what we are to do about it, all I ask is that the bureaucrats of Brussels are invited to come ashore at Hastings, with all their paper. We shall throw them back into the sea. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends to stand firm—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can tell anybody anything.

Mr. Warren: I recognise your authority, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I ask you to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have been in the fishing industry for a thousand years and we shall stay in it. We look forward to the Government keeping us in that business.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: These documents are important, but only because of the political context in which we read them. That context is the betrayal of the British fishing industry. In saying that, I cast no reflection upon the Ministers, because they have an impossible job. Indeed, most members of the Cabinet have an impossible job, and last week we heard that some were breaking free.
In this case the Ministers have been delivered bound and gagged into the conference chamber by their own Prime Minister. They have been delivered there because, as part of the public relations victory the Prime Minister gained on the budget issue, she agreed—everyone on the Continent knows that she agreed, and Ministers should admit that she agreed—to settle on fishing. If this is not so, why is there this self-imposed deadline of 31 December? Why do we now have a situation in which there are 24 shopping days to Christmas and 35 betraying days to the common fisheries policy? Why have we got this deadline imposed upon us if there is not such an agreement?
It would increase the stature of the Ministers if they admitted that this was the situation in which their own Prime Minister had placed them. It would also bring them the sympathy of the House.
In the light of that situation, I comment upon the documents and first of all upon the quota position. We are still arguing about quotas. This is akin to sharing out a rainbow in buckets. It is an ineffective way of policing fishing. We have not even got acceptance of a basic principle, which should be so vital, that we who bring 70

per cent. of the catch of the Common Market should have the catch appropriate to us. We should not still be messing about with 26 per cent., as the British Fishing Federation has told us. That seems to be the maximum we shall be offered.
It is increasingly worrying that the issue of quotas is becoming politicised. One thing the Common Market told us was that it would pay attention to the common interest and that there would be an impartial method of deciding these things, on the basis of scientific evidence. What we see is the market edging up the total allowable catches on the basis of scientific advice dredged from here, statistics dredged from there and mistakes dredged from another place. There is a process of edging up the total allowable catch to satisfy all the political demands made on the fishing resources of the Common Market. That process must be harmful to the coastal States, because historically the State that suffers in such a process is the one with the fish—the coastal State. Everyone else has an interest in over-fishing and grabbing as much as they can for themselves of what is, in this case, our resource. It is distressing to see that politicisation of quotas going in in these documents.
I come now to the market proposals. Welcome as it is to have a regulated market, the key part of that market is price. That price question has not been tackled because withdrawal prices are edging up with inflation. In some cases they are below the rate of inflation. It is crucial that we get the withdrawal prices on the Continent brought up to stop this market being flooded with fish, essentially our fish, caught-by foreign vessels and dumped on our market by those foreign fishermen. That will not stop until we get effective withdrawal prices on the Continent.
The general conclusion is depressing. If Ministers are to stand firm, as I hope they will, they will have to go against the Prime Minister, the "praying mantis". They should not be worried about that, because it is becoming a habit of Cabinet Ministers to go against the Prime Minister. However, they should remember that they are fighting not only for the survival of their own party but in the national interest in this matter. It is getting terribly close, not just to the eleventh hour but to five minutes to 12 o'clock, not here but in the negotiations. They should remember that if they are not able to get what the country needs, what the industry demands and what is essential for the future of the fishing industry, they will have to act independently.
It would be tragic if we were to bow and accept a half-baked settlement which was then rejected by Denmark. That would be humiliating, but it would be the situation into which the Prime Minister herself had put us and it is the situation which is pointed to by these documents. On basic points, even at this late hour, we still have not got a recognition of our needs, demands and requirements. I say that with a sense of foreboding about what is still to come.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Because of the shortage of time, it is obvious that no hon. Member can do justice to these documents. As the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, we had hoped to be discussing these documents in full tonight, but, unfortunately, we are not being given that opportunity. We had also hoped to be discussing the final


solution to the common fisheries policy, which, since we acceded to the Common Market in 1973, has been a total disaster.
The blame for that disaster must lie at the door of the Labour Party. In particular, the major part of the blame must lie on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). He was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1976 to 1979. It is unforgivable that he refused to attend an important meeting of the Ministers in 1978. It was an impertinence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, when he addressed a meeting in Aberdeen recently, to suggest that it was the Conservative Government who had sold the fishing industry down the river. Had he taken the time to go to Aberdeen harbour and see the vessels lying there rotting, and for which he was responsible during the years 1976 to 1979 when he was a Minister in the Labour Government, that would have had a profound effect upon him.
I did the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of advising him that I intended to refer to him in this debate. Had the right hon. Gentleman risen to his responsibilities and gone to the European Community and put forward the relevant solutions, which he was able to do in the period 1976–79, we would not be in the present position.
My right hon and hon. Friends who are attending Brussels at present will come up with a full and final solution to the common fisheries policy which will be acceptable not only to the House but to the people of this country. That is what we want. Such a solution will be especially acceptable to the constituency I represent—Aberdeenshire, East—which is the largest fishing constituency in Europe.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the provisions of Standing Order 3(1)(b) on the question of a debate lasting for only one and a half hours on a Commission document? It says:
if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall be adjourned till the next sitting".
Twenty-two hon. Members have been trying to catch the eye of the Chair. In addition, we are discussing seven documents, three inches in depth, as has been pointed out. It would be within your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening carefully to the debate. The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) indicated that the motion incorporated the views of the official Opposition. Eleven right hon. and hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. We have had adequate time for the discussion, and the Minister has received the message that he will wish to take back to Brussels.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the House and to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that on an important matter like this many hon. Members wish to

speak. However, we have had views from hon. Members representing many areas of the United Kingdom. It has been a broad and useful debate.
I should like to pay a personal tribute to Geordie Hunter, of Shetland, who, unfortunately, died in Brussels during our last negotiations. I was with him a few hours before. Those of us who take an interest in the fishing industry owe a great debt of gratitude to the representatives of the fishermen who give up fishing time and their own time to present their case to Ministers and to represent the industry. We very much appreciate that sacrifice. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for having mentioned Geordie Hunter.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In his opening speech, which lasted about half an hour, the Minister concentrated pretty nearly exclusively on the quotas documents and spelt out the objectives, which received broad support from the House. However, he did not say very much about the Government's objectives on marketing. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) devoted his speech to that aspect. Because of the chaos of the markets and the great uncertainties that have already been wrought, will the hon. Gentleman devote at least some of the remaining time to saying what the Government's objectives are in those negotiations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has taken up some of that limited time. One reason why I spoke at some length earlier was that I gave way so willingly to interventions from the Opposition Benches. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be tolerant of me if I do not give way on future occasions.
I am happy to deal with the question of markets. As I admitted, I did not give as much time to that aspect as I should have done. As I mentioned, particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), I believe that the question of markets is absolutely crucial. It is important that we have better marketing regulation. It should cover a wider range of species of fish; it should be able better to control imports from countries outside the Community and it must set withdrawal prices at a very much more realistic level. I believe that the setting of withdrawal prices should be done by the Community outside the review of the marketing regulations generally. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be working hard towards that.
The centre of the debate is the question of quotas. A number of hon. Members asked what the percentages refer to. It is terribly important that in this negotiation we concentrate on those species that are important to United Kingdom fishermen. Some of the percentages in the twenties refer to all kinds of industrial species and others in which, historically, the British fishing industry has not been interested. It is right in these negotiations to concentrate on those demersal species and mackerel which have been the backbone of the economics of the British fishing industry. To ignore such a basis would be stupid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is right about distant water fishing. Dealing with our historic record and third countries, our interest in those fish outside the seven species of which we spoke amounts annually to about 2,500 tonnes, which is 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom fishing catch. In 1979, 84 per cent. of the tonnage of fish landed in the United Kingdom applied to the seven species which are the subject of these


quotas. If the United Kingdom Government did not pay attention to those species, we would not be doing justice either to the United Kingdom or to the fishing industry. If—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents 9336/80, 9336/80 corrigendum 1, 10688/80 on total allowable catches, 10090/80, 10687/80, 10722/80 on 1980 quota allocations, 9917/80 and COM (80) 724 on organisation of the market in fishery products, but regards as inadequate the quota allocations to the United Kingdom illustrated in these documents; reaffirms support for the Government's objective of a satisfactory settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy; and maintains the need to secure an overall share of fish for United Kingdom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters and the contribution made by United Kingdom waters to total European Community fish resources.

Petition

Small Businesses

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I wish to present a petition from the Shropshire branch of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited which showeth
That the proposals outlined in "Income During Initial Sickness: A New Strategy"—Cmnd. 7864—will cause considerable damage to employment prospects in small businesses.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House rejects the proposals outlined in that White Paper.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Marriage Bureaux

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. John Carlisle: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a subject that has certainly been near to my heart during the last few momths and near to the hearts of several thousand people. I ask the Office of Fair Trading, under its Director General, to make further investigation and inquiry into the business of marriage bureaux. This subject has been under inquiry for many years—certainly longer than my researches could find. It has been the subject of various surveys and it seems to have a renewable interest in the media. I wish to draw attention in particular to those institutions and marriage bureaux which are unashamedly exploiting the public and, therefore, making it essential that the public be protected.
This is a sensitive and emotive subject. It relates to the most senstive of human emotions—love—and to third parties trying to arrange marriages on earth rather than in Heaven. The very sensitivity of the subject has hampered my investigations and the investigations which have been made by officialdom over the past few years. It can be extremely embarrassing for those who seek the services of marriage bureaux. Therefore, people have been exploited

by others who seem more anxious to obtain a quick financial reward than to help those who come to them for this service. Because of the misery, distress and anxiety that have been caused and the cheating that has gone on, I think that the time has come for a further public examination in the House and through the Office of Fair Trading of the whole business of marriage bureaux.
I seek some form of protection for those involved. After all, those involved are genuinely searching for another partner for life through these agencies. There is no doubt that there is a need for that service. But the service that I wish to highlight is that conducted by the cheats and bandits who are exploiting the general public.
There have been various surveys since 1966. The first was carried out by the Consumers' Association magazine Which? It sent out volunteers to various bureaux. They visited what they described as "sympathetic" bureaux—those sympathetic to the cause of people seeking the service of a marriage bureau. Of the 62 bureaux they visited, they found 17 that were co-operative and agreed with the general principles of what they were looking for. That is only 25 per cent., which is a relevant figure, as will become apparent as I continue.
Which? magazine made two definite recommendations. First, it said that any interviews that took place must be personal interviews, as part of the code of practice. Secondly, it said that the fees should be paid in proportion, after a marriage had taken place. Those were relevant facts. About 14 million people in this country are either single, divorced or widowed, so if we take the small figure of 1 per cent. of those who might seek to use the services of a marriage bureau, we could be talking about 140,000 people. I do not hesitate to mention the name of the Heather Jenner bureau, which is probably the best-known marriage bureau in the world and trades internationally. Mrs. Jenner has been successful over 40 years of trading, with 20,000 marriages having taken place, and is a fine example to the rest of the industry.
Since 1966, attention has been given to the subject by the media and by national newspapers. The Daily Mail carried out a thorough investigation of one particularly shady organisation, making its own recommendations. The Daily Mirror, if I may mention that newspaper in the same breath, also instituted a full inquiry, and found some disturbing results. That admirable, searching BBC programme "Checkpoint" recently carried out a similar survey but concentrated more on dating and computer agencies, about which I shall not speak. Since then, various stories have appeared on local radio and television. The Sunday newspapers, even as recently as last Sunday, always seem to be full of stories of dissatisfied customers of marriage bureaux. The whole tale over the years seems to be one of heartbreak and of manipulation of clients' funds by these shady organisations. I would not wish to give the impression that all bureaux are like that, and amongst all the failures—which are bound to catch the headlines—there have been successes. I mentioned Mrs Jenner's agency, and there are other successes. Obviously, human nature being what it is, several people will never be satisfied until they find either the man or the woman of their dreams.
In 1977, two significant surveys were carried out, one by Woman's Own magazine, a well-read paper, in which 500 people participated. Of the 500 people who had used the services of marriage bureaux, only 17 per cent. were satisfied with the service they received. Their main


complaint was that they were paying out money over a short time and meeting entirely unsuitable clients. There was also complaint that no personal interview was given, while many of those who were dissatisfied took no further action in trying to recover their moneys but abandoned their efforts early on and "put it down to experience".
In the same year, what was probably the most significant survey was carried out by the Office of Fair Trading under its Director General, Gordon Borrie. Again, from all the information it collated—I congratulate it on an excellent survey—it found that about two-thirds of the people were dissatisfied with the service that the marriage bureau they had chosen had given. That year was notable because a case was brought in a Warwick court under the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 when four widows took a marriage bureau to court. The marriage bureau was fined £375 and the widows received £100 each in compensation.
That was a fairly rare case. I suggest that because of its rarity it does not bear much thinking about in terms of what we are discussing tonight. Obviously, the mere fact that one must take a marriage bureau to court—with all the embarrassment, publicity and personal cost that goes with it—means that people are fairly reluctant to do so. I am not surprised to read that in recent times that has been the only case.
The Borrie report recommended a code of conduct and advice to those who were searching for the services of a marriage bureau. It also recommended that the trade itself should form an association. That was tried some years ago, particularly by Katharine Allen and Heather Jenner, but unfortunately it failed. Certainly, the Director General at that time thought that it was a good idea. It is one that I certainly support.
The whole tone of the report was that some protection was needed for those who found themselves in this position. In recent months, my own research has been assisted by a journalist from my own constituency, Mrs. Jean Austin, who has been active with this campaign for many years. She brought to my attention in the summer that in and around my constituency—one sensed that it was so in the rest of the country—a great deal of illicit trading was going on, with cowboy outfits moving into the marriage bureau market and exploiting and cheating the people whom they were trying to serve.
As a journalist, Mrs. Austin was rightly concerned about the advertising in newspapers. Virtually every classified section in local, national and Sunday papers carries advertisements, which in some cases give only a postal box number as a contact. That is clearly an unsuitable standard for this service. It is plain that there is no intention on the part of such bureaux to keep in business and to provide any form of satisfactory service.
I realise that it is difficult for any advertising manager to turn down advertisements, but I feel that newspaper proprietors must take some responsibility for the authenticity of advertisements which they receive.
Since we have made our views known, Mrs. Austin and I have received letters of complaint from all over the country. It may be advantageous to the House if I give several examples. These are completely genuine letters of which I have copies. One lady wrote to me in these terms:
One of the 'Principals' to whom I spoke by telephone can only be described as aggressive and pompous and the lady

running another, although she sounded sweet and sympathetic, promised house parties and social events which never materialised. Every time I telephoned about these I was fobbed off".
I suggest that that is a typical example of the description of some of the people who run these bureaux. Another lady wrote:
The first introduction which she"—
that is, the proprietor—
'personally recomended' turned out to be a married man still living at home with his wife and teenage family. He tried to square things up by saying that his wife went her way and he went his and it was obvious that he was 'looking for a bit on the side'.
That was certainly a dubious character who had crept on to the books of that bureau.
Another letter stated:
Another Bureau sent me quite a number of forms with addresses and telephone numbers but there was no information as to the kind of men these were—builders, dustmen, Civil Servants, dukes or professors and one I telephoned turned out to be a 19 stone coloured ticket collector who agreed that he was just as unsuitable for me as I was for him but when I challenged this bureau about this they just denied it all.
I can understand the mirth of my hon. Friends, but this lady was most upset by that contact that she was given. She continues:
Several persons I contacted by phone were already married and had been for some time.
We have had examples of people having been dead for several months yet remaining on the lists of marriage bureaux. Another relevant example states:
I did meet one very nice gentleman through a bureau and we met twice as we were not really attracted to one and other but he was genuine, very lonely and he had lost a beloved wife tragically. This poor soul had had the same terrible experiences and had parted with a considerable sum of money. He too had met some real drop-outs whom the bureau had considered suitable companions for him. He decided he could not go through the whole nauseating business again and that's exactly how I feel about it. It really is high time these dubious agencies were thoroughly investigated. They must be making a fortune and it doesn't take long at £25 a time to get rich quick and get out.
I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
As regards the bureaux and some of the literature that I, and many intending clients have received, hon. Members will understand if I do not name one agency that has been advertising in the North of England. In the sweetest and most glib of tongues, it has conned several people. I understand that it has now been banned. It promised
Social events on a non-profit-making basis
However, I am told that no events took place. It claims to be registered, but there is no registration of marriage bureaux. It also claims to have sent out a free monthly newsletter, but from the correspondence that I have received it appears that that has not materialised. The agency wishes to attract men in particular. It offers free membership to
any man of exceptional ability—men of fame, men of great, wealth, or"—
here we go—
men of exceptional intellect. We spare no effort to attract highly presentable men.
That might appeal to some of my hon. Friends. If any of them want the telephone number of that organisation, I shall give it to them later.
That type of advertisement appears in newspapers and manifestos which are sent to lonely people of different ages, who are easily taken in by such organisations. One example is particularly sad. A threatening letter was sent to one of my constituents for the paltry sum of £15. Two letters were sent and they upset my constituent, who did


not know that he owed any money. It typifies the aggressive attitude of some of these bandits and also typifies the amount of heartache caused.
I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who has drawn my attention to certain events in his area. One lady is running a very respectable agency but is having trouble with some of her rivals. The obvious question to be asked is "What can be done?" I hope that the Office of Fair Trading will undertake to investigate this matter thoroughly. There is a genuine need for such an investigation. Many thousands of people might be in need of protection. We might be, literally, on the tip of an iceberg. It has proved very difficult to gain any evidence, because people find themselves in such an embarrassing situation.
As guidance to the Office of Fair Trading in its investigations, I suggest that it renews its code of conduct and advice to clients on the following lines. First, no client should be accepted without a personal interview. That was the basis of a general complaint that I found throughout my research.
Secondly, each person should agree that the business of any marriage bureau in which he is interested should be conducted in such a manner that each of its clients shall be fully informed in advance as to the service to be rendered to him or her by the bureau and the total fee payable in respect of such service, and the bulk of the fee should not be paid until a marriage has been completed.
Each bureau should agree to accept applications for registration only from those who are free to marry, namely, spinsters, bachelors, widows, widowers and legally divorced persons. No bureau that offers a list of clients should be eligible for membership of any association. No bureau that publishes descriptions of clients in newspapers—that seems to be a common fault—should be eligible for membership of the association. Lastly, the bureau of each member of such an association should be required to be properly registered with the Registrar of Companies or in the Registry of Business Names.
Those are not my recommendations. They were the recommendations of Heather Jenner and Katharine Allen made many years ago in a suggested code of conduct and byelaws. The Office of Fair Trading would do well to take notice of them.
The OFT could certainly encourage bureaux to form themselves into a trading association that would have its own respectability and responsibility and would give immediate identification to members of the public that the bureau that they wished to use was registered with a sound organisation.
I should like to see the provision of registration and licensing, but I realise that my brief in an Adjournment debate is not to seek further legislation. After all, I ask the Minister to consider that the highest priority is to seek to help the poor unfortunates who have fallen foul of the cowboy operators, who do no more than exploit and cheat them and take their money by false pretences. The House has a duty to offer those people some sort of protection.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): I thank my hon Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) for raising an important

subject. I am sure that the House and the country owe him a considerable debt of gratitude for raising a matter of concern and for doing so in such a sensitive way.
My hon. Friend retold some of the heartbreaking cases very movingly. I share his sympathy with those who have had such unsatisfactory, to say the least, experiences. I should like to do whatever is possible to protect others from suffering similar cruel disappointments and anxiety.
It is a sad fact that many people, particularly those in middle age or older people, lack friends and are lonely. Anyone who doubts whether loneliness is a major problem has only to read the classified advertisement columns of magazines. Such people will obviously be attracted by the claims of marriage bureaux and the introduction agencies. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous will always seek to take advantage and exploit the vulnerability of such people. There are reputable, long-established marriage and introduction bureaux. They charge reasonable fees for their services and take great pains to identify those who are likely to get on well. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to them.
Easy as it is to castigate the malpractices of some marriage bureaux—and I shall do—before doing so one should take account of the difficulties that some face. Inevitably, most of their clients are shy people who find it difficult to make friends. Some have unrealistically high expectations. Many women will expect to find a Robert Redford and many men will expect to find a Raquel Welch. In my diligent researches before the debate, I attempted to fill in a computer data form. I had got only half-way through describing myself when I discovered that I was very much in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act.
However, a bureau should be criticised harshly if it accepts money from a client and makes promises when there is no reasonable expectation that it can satisfy those promises and often when it has no intention of doing so, or when it fails to honour its obligations to a client by providing an appropriate number of introductions. It is all too clear that some bureaux, as my hon. Friend has said, fail to honour those commitments and, quite shamefully and cruelly, exploit the vulnerable people who come to them.
It is difficult to tell how widespread the abuse is. Many people, as my hon. Friend says, are naturally too embarrassed or shy to admit that they have been to a bureau. The Director General tells me that, from the information he gathers and from information provided by local citizens' advice bureaux and local trading standards officers, only about 150 complaints are received. Many thousands are received about other consumer products, more of which, it is true, are consumed. I do not believe for one moment that the figures available reveal the extent of the problem.
The unsatisfactory marriage bureau is a problem that we should face. I do not believe, however—I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend—that it would be practicable or desirable at present to license them. I hope that the industry itself will follow up the suggestion of the Director General of Fair Trading that responsible agencies in the business should form a strong trade association. I am sure that the Director General would be glad to publish a satisfactory code.
Until a satisfactory code can be drawn up, those who are thinking of patronising a marriage bureau should follow the advice, to which my hon. Friend referred, given by Gordon Borne three years ago. First, consumers should


obtain information about as many bureaux and agencies as possible and carefully compare what they promise. They should not sign anything until they are satisfied. They should study the small type and bear in mind that an offer of "up to six introductions" means what it says and does not mean that the consumer will receive at least six introductions. The consumer should be clear about what he is entitled to before he decides to spend his money.
Secondly, tempting though it may be to a lonely and often desperate person, the consumer should avoid letting his expectations rise too high. I realise that this is easier said than done. Thirdly, anyone who feels that he or she has had a bad deal should complain to the bureau. If it will not put things right, the consumer should go to the citizens' advice bureaux, a solicitor or a trading standards officer. In some cases, they are able to obtain redress without any publicity. I shall inquire of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to see whether secrecy of any subsequent proceedings might be considered.
Sometimes complaints, resolutely but confidentially pursued, will persuade the bureau to adopt different attitudes and avoid disappointments in the future. Above all, the existence of the complaints themselves will enable the Director General to assess the scale of the problem. I hope that the newspapers will publicise my hon. Friend's speech and also the advice that I have given to those considering using a bureau. The publicity will be justified if it persuades a few lonely people to think before they spend and a few dissatisfied clients to complain rather than to brood over the injustices they have suffered.
For my part, I can assure my hon. Friend that I propose to write to the Director General of Fair Trading drawing his attention to what has been said during this debate, so that he can take full account of the cases to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and to ask him whether it would be appropriate—I hope that it will be—for him to take any action in respect of them and, indeed, to reconsider the whole problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.